Hermeneutics - The branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation,

especially of literary texts. Root word - Hermes (messenger of the

Olympians and also the god of mischief)

Human Nature
Norm: What behaviour is ought to be
Empirical: What behaviour is supposed to be.
Abstract Individualism: The belief that an individual can exist without
a society.
- It is also considered as a base for liberalism.
Hegel said that the human world and the physical word interact with
each other constantly.
- Dialecticism is the interaction between two entities in which both
evolve, and this interaction is called Praxis
Delimitation is the demarcation of constituencies
All models of human nature are normative: they are constructed out
of philosophical and moral assumptions, and are therefore
untestable.

(28/08/2023)

Interpretation of Texts
Vantage Point: A point from where the author/speaker use their
personal biases and ideologies in their work and words.
Karl Marx's Vantage Point: He saw that only the rich were living life
and that everybody else in the bottom rungs of society had nothing
to their name nor any qualities hence the lives led by them were
useless and were treated like replaceable machines. Why do the
 rich control everything? How is it that if the rich watch something it's
theatre, if the poor do the same, it's degenerate art?
Hermeneutics is also known as the art of interpretation.
The original intention of the author can not be conveyed through
various interpretations and translations of the same text.
eg: The Republic by Plato. It was originally written in Greek, so any
edition that we can read rn is all translated, which causes the
original meaning of the Republic to be lost in time and we only read
an interpretation of the language.

Marxian Interpretation
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling
ideas.
That is, the dominant or mainstream ideas of any era are
those that serve the interests of te dominant class, largely
by legitimating their pre-eminent position in society.
The Marxist Interpretation is known as the Hermeneutics of
Suspicion

(30/08/2023)

Straussian Philosophy
It says that everything flows out of philosophy, especially political
philosophy.
The culture of a society, behaviour, etc all come from the political
philosophy of a society.
Any problem is called the crisis of our time which flows out from the
political philosophy is the Straussian Philosophy.
Strauss says that if we have Political Philosophy in every problem,
we need to divide.
 The political philosophy given by the ancients had the real answers
for every major crises that comes up.
He also says that, due to various interpretations and
translations, we lost the actual meaning of the texts.
He wants to recapture the actual meaning of said texts inorder
to have solutions to the crises that can come up in society.
Strauss says that those who follow him will be the only ones to
understand the real meaning of the ancient texts as they unravel it
together.
They say that all texts have an esoteric meaning, which means it's
not available to everyone.
All the people get are exoteric meanings, since they do not
have the mental capabilities to decipher the actual meaning,
they only understand the commonly accepted meaning.

Feminist Philosophy
One criticism of the feminist philosophy is that finding the over
patriarchal aspect in every problem, prevents one from exploring or
finding other causes which might be relevant.

Post-Modernism Philosophy
The outcome of emphasising on all the elements of Modernism was
epistemological.
The move towards modernism led to an emergence of grand
theories which attempted to explain universal explanations for
the human condition.
Post modernism is similar to Marxism because it focuses on the
down-trodden, people who don't have a voice.
Post modernism emerges from Linguistics and not political
philosophy.
Post-modernists say that all the problems in the world are because
there is a minority that dominates.
eg: A language created and used by the dominant class is used
nation-wide and the other languages are just simply regarded as
dialects, sometimes leading to the extinction of other languages
If you don't speak the dominant language, you are not given the
same opportunities and education compared to the people that
do.
Post-modernists argue that, in order to keep their domination over
society, the ruling class normalises certain behaviours.
eg: A concept used by Fuko can explain this really well
The example of a Panopticon.
A panopticon is a resource efficient method to build a
prison that allows easy observation of the prisoners.
It was used as a method to condition the prisoners into
behaving regardless of the presence of a guard or not.
Fuko says that all the modern societies maintain surveillance
over everyone, just like how a guard observes the prisoners at
all times in a panopticon.
The dominant class makes the oppressed class regulate
themselves.
Modernism gave birth to grand theories, Post-Modernism says that
grand theories don't work as humans are so complex and varied
Post-modernism says that there should be individual experiments
and that any kind of theories won't work in finding out the
complexities of the humans.
Post-modernism refers to any study that completely rejects grand
theories, definitions and tries to understand or explain systems of
 oppression.
Derrida talks about looking into every single theory and it's
deconstruction, because the theory is not just there to understand
the theory and it's context, but also exploring if it has been used to
promote some form of oppression.
The idea of pluralism is that you don't subscribe to only one theory,
but you open yourself to different world views, different opinions.

Judicial Hermeneutics
Legal Hermeneutics: Similar to political hermeneutics, the practice
of interpreting various meanings of law is a part of legal
hermeneutics. Legal Hermeneutics is essentially an exercise of
choosing b/w 3 major approaches:
Legal Positivism - Argues that there is no necessary connection
between law and morality and, moral considerations do not
factor in legitimacy of law.
Natural Law Theory - Argues that an unjust law is no law at all
or an immoral law has no legitimacy.
Legal Interpretivism or Dworkinian approach - Argues that all
law is essentially interpretive in nature and it gains its authority
and legitimacy from legal principles. Legal principles in turn are
generated from legal practice.
For legal hermeneutics, there is no foundation of law and there are
only interpretations of law which can be measured comparatively
and their legitimacy can always be questioned.

(06/09/2023)

Hobbes' Contractarianism
Acc. to Hobbes, the state of human nature is one where we have
some semblance of control over our characteristics, i.e., absolute
freedom.
For Hobbes, human nature is as bad as it comes: humans are
greedy, covetous, never satisfied.
Because we're so bad, we'll look at what others have and covet
that.
State of nature is that state of existence where humans have
absolute freedom, where they can act greedy, covetous without
restrictions at all.
If the state of nature is always this dangerous, then it won't be
feasible to live in, causing constant fear in people.
There's nothing to stop the people from dying a painful death if the
state of nature persists to be this brutal.
The state of nature can only change when everybody decides to put
restrictions on themselves, provided that the rest do the same.
Absolute freedom is replaced with relative freedom, i.e., freedom
with certain restrictions.
Individuals coming together, talking to each other, saying that all of
us will give up our absolute freedom and will accept relative
freedom, that is what can change the state of nature.
If all of us are equal, then we are all equal in our absolute freedoms,
and we are equal in our relative freedoms.
Hobbes doesn't say that the authority above us comes from among
us. He says that there should be an authority above us.
This authority becomes the "Sovereign".
The Sovereign will have absolute power over us.
The Social Contract is between citizens and as part of that contract,
we citizens have given power to the Sovereign.
The minute we give power to the Sovereign, we give them absolute
control to punish us, administer us, make laws and exercise it's full
power over us.
The sovereign does not have to consult us before doing any of this.
This causes the Sovereign to become an Absolute Sovereign or an
Absolute Monarch.
There is need for a monster to keep devouring the subjects, also
known as The Leviathan.
This is important as the Leviathan keeps the subjects from killing
each other by eating it's subjects.
Locke
Lockian Assumption of Human Nature is completely opposite to
the Hobbesian Assumption of Human Nature
Says that human beings are empathetic, nice, etc.
There was a period in time where humans used to live in peace
and harmony acc. to Locke.
Locke also tries to bring back some element of religion into
social contracts.
If Hobbes tries to remove some aspect of religion for a
monarch, Locke tries to bring it back.
Locke says that this whole world and everything that exists in
this world is thanks to God, and that man is designed in the
image of God.
If man is the image of God, how can man be bad? Since God is
good, then man should also be good.
There is still a problem even when we're too good, we still have
absolute freedom.
It stops us from solving our disputes.
Two aspects to Lockian Theory:
 Absolute Freedom
Everything is created by God
Locke tries to come up with a concept of Private Property. The
only way we can claim something to be ours is by taking
something that God has given to us.
The moment we put our labour into claiming something, that's
when they can claim something as their own.
eg: When you do backbreaking labour for farming, the fruit of
the farm is yours and not God's because you put in the work for
it.
Locke says that there must be no wastage, as long as there is
no wastage, you can claim it.
The Representative Govt is always conscious, they know
what's good for the society.
It will never act like the Absolute Govt
It will only make laws that are justifiable and are
reasonable.
The reasonability is defined by the people who made the
Representative Govt.
Locke's Natural Rights:
Right to Life
Right to Liberty
Right to Property
Rosseau
Rousseau:
Rousseau agrees with Locke’s idea of state of nature.
He says that individuals have a dual existence that is
individuals exist as individuals per say and they also exist as
part of society because individuals form society.
 We essentially sign two contracts: one between the individual
and society and the other between individuals.
Whatever the government is deciding, if they are society’s
decisions then it is my decision as well.
If I oppose the government at one point in time, then I’m a
lunatic because I am opposing my own decisions.
This form of contract will lead to the idea of a General Will. This
based on the likings, disliking’s, and oppositions of everyone.
Essentially any crime committed is a crime against oneself. By
punishing you we are freeing you of the fact that you have lost
sight of the central idea.
The problem with this is that it can be exploited for every tiny
thing.
"Man is born free, but everyone is in chains.”
He says that “general will” will free the masses.
This is what leads to a totalitarian government.

By common will here is meant a common determination to move ‘away’

from something and ‘towards’ something else

The "something else" refers to human state.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all posited such a will. Those who—
because of the exceptional significance with which Rousseau
invested the term ‘general will’—insist on separating the
‘mechanical’ idea of the social contract from the ‘organic’ idea of a
general or common will are thus in danger of obscuring the nature of
the doctrine.
There are two ways of looking at a common will:
Mechanical Way: once individuals have realised how
dangerous or impractical the state of nature is, then it takes a
 mechanical direction without any variation for the individuals to
create a civil state.
Organic Way: The point when you realise you can't live in the
state of nature is when you start thinking about it. The constant
questioning of which type of civil state (a mechanical way). If
the discussions are naturally brutish, then it leads to a brutal
civil state. If your nature is one of a good nature, then the civil
state will become a Lockian Civil State or a Rosseau Civil
State.
The way a social contract is arrived at can have a Mechanical View
and a Organic View.
And similarly, a Common or General Will is understood can also
have a Mechanical and an Organic View depending upon how
we understand the human nature and the rights and obligations
based on such understanding of human nature.
General Will: A society where everyone's wills are getting fulfilled
and hence when we reach that its only then when humans can fulfil
their own potential and live peacefully

(08/09/2023)

A government can be appointed by the sovereign, but the

government can't be the sovereign.
The social contract given by Locke leads to Representative
Democracy.
Decisions by a Referendum is called a Direct Democracy.
For:
Locke: maximum potential is achieved when you preserve
natural rights of the citizens.
Rosseau: maximum potential is achieved when the society is
ruled by general will.
 Hobbes: maximum potential is achieved when the Leviathan is
established for the peace of society.

John Rawls: Theory of Justice

John Rawls original position refers to the state of nature spoken
about by Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau.
When Rawls talks about original position, he says that all human
beings had a similar disposition towards work and a similar
accessibility towards power.
This is similar to the concept of nature which was spoken about by
Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau.
Context (vantage points) for their philosophies:
Hobbes: Widespread violence due to the English Civil War
Locke: Lack of preservation of property
Rosseau: Massive class divide and discrimination
Rawls: Widespread Injustice.
Rawls argued that we live in a world where distributive justice
seems to be the only form of justice that we are concerned about.
Rawls is criticizing the idea of distributive justice.
All those services or rights which are essential for the functioning of
the society and to which all citizens should have equal access are
public goods.
In modern political states, one of the primary responsibilities of the
government is to ensure equitable distribution of public goods.
Rawls' notion of the world was where we are constantly running
after limited resources as individuals, government or even society
as a whole.
There is an insatiable demand of the government to distribute these
resources equally among the individuals.
Instead of distributing the resources equally, the government
chooses to use a more utilitarian approach
Client-Patron relationship is a feature of democracy (any type).
In all the different types of democracy where people vote for an
individual, there is a client-patron relationship formed.
Client = Voters
Patron = Person running
Utilitarianism argues that the best form of governance is that which
achieves the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers.
Rawls says that utilitarianism is the problem with the world because
of it's incessant running behind of resources to achieve the greatest
happiness of the greatest numbers.
Rawls's theory:
Politically organized societies, in Rawls’s view, are and should
be regulated by principles of justice. The latter come first in
order of priority; all forms of social cooperation must be judged
and if necessary reformed or abolished in terms of prior
principles of justice. However, principles of justice are chosen
by individuals; they are ‘conventional’. People can and do
choose differently. The task of ‘a theory of justice’ is to present
a conception of justice which is not mere description, but will
provide ‘in the first instance a standard whereby the distributive
aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed’.
‘Our object should be to formulate a conception of justice which,
however much it may call upon intuition, ethical or prudential, tends
to make our considered judgments of justice converge’
'however much it may call upon intuition, ethical or prudential':
When we look at the world and we see an utilitarian approach
happen, we are essentially seeing a prudential conception of
 justice, which is flawed right from the beginning because we
can't distribute happiness to everyone.
Governments need to bring together both ethical and prudential
conceptions of justice.
We should stop dividing justice to ethical and prudential and
instead have only one conception of justice which is the
convergence of the two.

Body Politic: All of the rules put together.

Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau talk about dividing morality as Natural
Morality v. Political/State Morality.
All 3 would say that we have a natural morality, which emerges
out of our human nature.
For Hobbes and Locke, natural morality is God-given. For
Rosseau it's a secular philosophic idea
Political Morality for all 3 is created by the Body Politic which is
created as a result of the social contract.
Therefore, different political moralities emerge out of all 3
theories because they create different types of Body Politics.
For Hobbes, the political morality is essentially of obedience
and subservience.
For Locke, the political morality is transactional.
For Rosseau, the political morality is an extension of one's own
natural morality.