The History Of Ideas And Political Thought Reading Club Presents: Liberty Series, Locke & Paine.

John Locke (1632–1704), a key figure of the Enlightenment, is known for his contributions to philosophy, politics, and epistemology. 

His Essay Concerning Human Understanding introduces the concept of the tabula rasa, arguing that the mind begins as a blank slate, acquiring knowledge solely through experience. This empiricist view challenged traditional notions of innate ideas, such as Plato’s Forms or the Christian doctrine of original sin.

A Letter Concerning Toleration further advocated the separation of church and state, promoting religious freedom as essential to individual and societal well-being.

Locke’s political philosophy, most notably in Two Treatises of Government, laid the foundation for modern liberal democracy. He emphasized natural rights—life, liberty, and property—and argued that governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not divine authority. This is the text from which the chapter we will be looking at today originates.

Transcript

Right. Well, welcome to the second session of our Liberty Series, political thought. Reading club presents. Lock and pain. Presented by me, Sammy Woodall.
 PhD candidate in intellectual let's keep Buckingham and yeah, we're going to be looking at two godfathers of liberty in their own ways.
 John Locke and Thomas Payne.
 So first of all, John Locke, a sort of proto Enlightenment figure or at least a very early Enlightenment figure.
 He's known for his contributions to philosophy, politics, epistemology, his essay concerning human understanding introduces the concept of the tabular Raza.
 Arguing that the mind begins with a blank slate, acquiring knowledge solely through experience, this empiricist view challenged traditional notions of innate ideas such as Plato's forms or the Christian doctrine of original sin. In a letter concerning toleration, Locke further advocated the separation of church and state that had been under.
 Undergone since the Reformation, promoting religious freedom as essential as essential to individual and societal well-being.
 What's political philosophy, most notably in the two treatises of government, laid the foundation for modern liberal democracy. He emphasised natural rights, life, liberty and property, and argued that governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not via divine authority. This is the text from which the chapter we will be looking at today originates.
 But first of all, I'll just go through the texts in slightly more detail in terms of some contextual stuff. So he was writing prodigiously in 1689, the first of which the FA consenting human understanding is not really a defensive enlightenment empiricism, but a celebration of the individual's capacity for rational discovery. Central to the work is Locke's concept of the Tabula Rasa, the idea that the mind begins as a white paper, avoidable characters without any innate ideas or knowledge.
 This challenge is traditional epistemological views, such as photos, forms or the Christian doctrine of Massa Bicarcid original sin, which suggests humans possess inherent.
 So universal concepts in the context of the 17th century, lots rejection of original sin was very provocative, as it opposed long standing religious and philosophical traditions. However, with the decline of Catholic influence in posture of Protestant England, such ideas found fertile ground and actually lock side note, lock was actually involved in some of the attempts to assassinate James the second, depending on how.
 Much people know that sort of late Stuart politicking, but he housed some of the.
 White House plot.
 Assassins and help them escape to the Netherlands. Locke argues that knowledge originates entirely from experience, grounding his epistemology and observation and rational inquiry. Later scholars like Bernard Mandeville critique Locke at the favour of the Bees, suggesting lock overlooks, the role of human passions in shaping individual and societal development.
 Be a letter concerning toleration for John Locke. Again writing Jingle Early Enlightenment addresses the concept of tolerance. In another 1689 work, a letter concerning toleration. Locke argues that tolerance is a Christian virtue, emphasising the matters of faith should be free and voluntary. It critiques the continued intertwining of church and state, asserting that men's souls cannot belong to the magistrate, meaning that religious authority.
 Should not be dictated by the state or its officials.
 True faith arises only when it is uncoversed, reflecting his broader advocacy for the separation of religious and political institutions.
 Locke's call for religious tolerance arose amidst 17th century England's religious and political turmoil, including the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. In this era of persecution and enforced conformity locks, a letter concerning toleration argued for separating church and state, emphasising the true faith must be voluntary.
 Background and experiences in more tolerant societies, such as when he went to the Netherlands, lots of work, laid the groundwork for modern liberal thought.
 And then the text that we're looking at today, the two treaties on government blocks, two treaties on government in 1689, particularly chapter eight of the second Treaty address, addresses the origins of political society and the foundations of social contract theory. Writing the wake of the Glorious Revolution lock challenges the notion of a divine right monarchy. Instead of arguing the legitimate political authority arises from the consent of the government.
 He explains that individuals in the state of nature agree to form political societies by mutually consenting.
 To a social contract to protect their natural rights, life, liberty and property. Again, those 3 pivotal concepts. Locke contends that political power is entrusted to governments to serve the common good, but this power remains conditional on the preservation of those rights. If we betray this trust, citizens have the right to dissolve the government blocks ideas in this chapter profoundly influence the development of modern democracy and the philosophical underpinnings of constitutional government.
 This is what we shall look at.
 1st.
 So put some questions up there, Jack. You might want to start us off, or if anyone has come with a particularly poignant question to open the discussion, and we'll do that for about 20 minutes, half an hour before we move on to the pain and then some of the influence of pain sort of lock on pain. So you have Jack, it's up to you. Unless anyone else wants to go.
 I'm very interested in lots.
 But like the idea that.
 In a fundamental way you you are born with freedom in the way that.
 However, it's not particularly a functional freedom.
 Effectively, and got me under so much.
 I would say.
 That would be.
 Russo, who would say? I think.
 That's an interesting.
 And what struck me about what you were saying was I hadn't connected this.
 So I'd like to know more about what that relationship is, because that's also a place where he and Russell.
 The black lady.
 Anything that when you back, yeah.
 Still very religious. Oh, yes. Yeah, very much so.
 That freedom. So it wasn't freedom.
 Hello.
 Wasn't quite as easily.
 Definitely. And I think it's it's an interesting sort of tension between the idea of the tabular browser, the sort of blank state mind. And yeah, how does that become a sort of tendency to?
 Towards freedoms, right, and sort of bouncing off of what you're saying, Peter.
 Very much so in terms of his religiosity and also the type of consent that he believes a social contract is formed by. And we were discussing this with the idea of what's called tacit consent.
 But it's not a full voluntarism like in a resurrection society that we were discussing, that you opt into because you realise that society will ultimately be the sort of formative for the common good. But actually it's a tacit consent that you take part of you become a part of the state simply by the fact that you're taking part in it. So the fact that you've grown up and accepted it's kind of benefits it's it's kind of support network for you as a child, as a young man, as a young woman.
 Growing up in it, operating within it.
 That is what he defines as tacit consent. So yeah, he certainly doesn't believe in a sort of radical freedom because you're automatically obliged to be part of the state and to therefore take on responsibilities within the state because you passively consented.
 With the idea of Catholic consent and.
 Well, as I sort of said in the introduction, it's very much obviously a sort of semantic realm coming out of a very religious era in the sense of there not being anything sort of.
 You know emblazoned on an individual when they're born, you're not, you know, you know, you're not either.
 Cool.
 Yeah, there is someone here.
 I'd say it means that there's there's no kind of sort of heretical element that you'd be born with or there's no sort of preordained, you know, even in a sort of more Calvinist way. So even without Catholicism, you know, left or damned, he seems that as you're naturally going to evolve with society, so you start off as a base level, which is essentially a kind of equal state in terms of what.
 Your intellectual, your material potentiality is.
 And you just like everyone else alongside you could grow into anything. There's nothing that has predefined your path within society. It's only through you participating in society becoming educated, becoming formed, that society does to you. That's the idea of the task of consent. But then you have a sort of a definition, an essence of who you are. But it's a little bit, almost existential. If you wanted to read it forward to that, you know, it's almost like.
 That existence predefines a prerequisite to.
 Excellence. That existence precedes essence. So I can say.
 Modern.
 Yeah, yeah.
 Do you understand?
 Yeah, no, certainly it's 21, my dear. I mean, obviously within boundaries. It's like when he talks about toleration. If this is within boundaries, you can't have any radical centres and you can't have any Catholics. So I mean, there are some people who are predefined and sitting outside of the state, which are anyone who is not a Church of England.
 So it's quite a strict kind of content. We've just done an introduction, but yeah, I'm Sam, so.
 Jack, you just met. Is that Co runner of this? I don't know whether you want to go around the table.
 Yeah, my name is.
 Just graduated last year from Moss and saturation.
 Hi Michelle, I'm doing PhD for share, sum it up archival studies, British history, ballet and imperialism.
 You studied. No, I'm not studying.
 What drew you to?
 Yeah. Fantastic, right.
 Yeah, I mean the keyword.
 Right. Brilliant. I love.
 Perfect.
 Would anyone like to sort of down top of what I was just saying?
 Questions or any sort of points.
 Well, I think the only thing I I read as well was the.
 Because I I sort of.
 Yeah.
 Be difficult.
 Yes, yeah, yeah.
 Engagement across the Commonwealth. Yeah, people engage with politics.
 Yeah, yeah. He didn't. He didn't want that state of nations. No, no, there was logical.
 Still essentially.
 Sovereign. Yes. Yeah, very much so. He didn't have any idea that they were. No, no, there was a logic to.
 Yeah. And as you said, in his case, that logic was positive.
 Exactly.
 Had a sense of choice.
 Bit of a solvent. Needed bike. Yeah. Yeah. Whereas I think Hobbs was. Yeah, unless for Hobbs, unless it was directly a threat to life then. Yeah.
 Progression from Hobbs to a, as you can say to a.
 Exactly, yes. Yeah. And obviously, in the context of a century where there has been chaos, you know, when we talk about political chaos today, I mean, it's it really is something perennial. It's never unique. I mean that he's writing at a time where you've had a civil war raging across all the counties of England, into Ireland, massacres, slaughters, brother on brother, you know, sectarian division. You've had the restoration. You've then had this sort of move towards what, lots of.
 Privacy is despotism with the return of the stewards and their by the associated Catholicism that comes with it, even if they're trying to say that they're.
 Put up this facade after the restoration, but actually there's this fear that what was called at the time in pamphlets going around in the 1680 the engines of tyranny were wearing up again in England because these secret Catholics had returned to power and going to take away that evolution that was supposed to be gifted to you as a part of English society.
 Yes, exactly. It was, it was chaos it.
 Yeah. So yeah, certainly.
 And Michelle or Mary, do you have any questions?
 At the moment.
 And yeah, and have you both heard of social contract theories concept in politics. So last week two weeks ago, we were doing a session on Russo.
 More could say something more left liberal figure, but this series is called liberty because we're discussing people who live within what.
 And social contract theory is the idea that if you have a society, you have to have reciprocal obligations to the kind of rights and benefits that you get from societies. So in the 17th century through the 18th century, various scholars were deliberating on this. So from as Peter was just discussing, Thomas Hobbes, who is often regarded within sort of.
 Period is the first social contract kind of debate that or writer. He says, that if you don't have society.
 Fall into anarchy 'cause it would just be everyone in each other's throats trying to see each other's things and trying to kill each other to benefit themselves. Russo, who we looked at last week, discusses the idea that actually it's society that has corrupted man's natural state, that in a state of nature where there was no big society.
 Society would have been this kind of loving or be sort of somewhat reciprocally compassionate world if we hadn't had kind of corrupting.
 Civilization that told us that you need material objects and you know, whatever kind of fashion and everything that was basically going on in Paris in the 18th century was commercialising locks. It somewhere sort of halfway between those two. And that because you grow up in a society because you're raised within a certain community, you have obligations to that society because you've benefited from an upbringing in that society.
 That. That's the sort of three iteration of what we call social contract theory, and there are plenty more.
 Those are the kind of three core in my views of.
 And then, yeah, I suppose one that I'd pick out and I don't know, Peter, whether you might be interested in sort of discussing that, but can you sort of see what he thinks the purpose of a government is? Then what in within, within society, you know, as it emerges, what, what, what is the purpose of government within that society?
 Stuff.
 Yeah. So in order to at these slides, they have.
 Minimise all the parts of people and just.
 Or to guarantee the general ability. Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
 Yes, very much so, yeah.
 The threat of any intervention, certainly.
 We're just talking about what the purpose, what locks is the purpose of government? OK, we've moved on to sort of. Yeah, yeah, I love that.
 And we were saying about stability, about protecting from the threat of foreign intervention.
 Maintaining the sort of society that everyone has the ability to benefit from and participate in, what would you say, Jane?
 We've got a negative view of.
 The.
 Our hand again. Yeah. Yeah, and.
 And government is introduced.
 OK.
 Read college and in the absence of that, he talks about the kind of magic you were put to safeguard somebody or, you know, have their parents when they're retired.
 Yeah.
 He's never said it openly, he says.
 It had a very minor role.
 Exactly. And that that does step back to the point I was just making contextually in terms of that immediate fear that you could have a timeline, this Catholic king returning to England and you have to live at King's Power because everyone's thinking that cost of England was entrenched. There was never going to change, and that was the idea through Henry the eighth through all the way 200 years now of.
 Where am I going? I don't know. But you know.
 Decades and decades and decades, the idea that the Church of England was now established and that through the Church of England somewhat liberty was ensured, and the idea that this could actually be returning with despotism and papism and popery and all of these kind of terms that were going around, that essentially were the idea that religious dictatorship might return to England. That's why, yeah, the savings to be limited, because even if you have a benevolent ruler.
 You could easily fall back with either quick change.
 Easily fall back into despotism. So very much so the state needs to be limited and power needs to be distributed down rather than maintained sort of central.
 Force very much so.
 Or something else you said that I was going to respond to.
 But the the the.
 I think it was something else. I don't know if anyone else would like to. I mean or ask any questions or.
 Yeah, it's very patriarchal. Yeah, yeah.
 As long as you are the Catholic.
 You could be a Protestant, you could be a kind of you could be.
 Yes. Yeah.
 And he was certainly supportive of the Toleration Act that comes in in the same year, 1689, when the Toleration Act comes in, which gives non conformist the right to at least part, at least practise their religion. They can't go out and become.
 Fully pledged members of the state even then, yeah, they can't get to university. They can't hold political positions. So you know this great idea that somehow in 1689 England became this tolerant society was still very limited, even with the toleration. Actually, yes, some dissidents were allowed to practise, but they still weren't allowed to take any posts within the state and certainly not any other faith, whether it's the policies and whether it was Judaism.
 Anything you had it slightly later with an attempt at the Naturalisation Act in 1753, but.
 Would be a very long time until any other faith was actually given any sort of.
 Status within society, so yeah, but yeah, so there's certain elements in his thought that his dissidence should be about to practise and you shouldn't be able to enforce it. However, he is still wary that you know he uses terms like the magistrates and that's very much linking to a more Calvinist society. So unlike Rousseau, who's looking at a kind of Calvinist society like Geneva.
 And saying.
 And saying, well, that's the idyllic society, because the clergy of virtuous well for him, Geneva is far too authoritarian. It's far too sort of the magistrate dictates to you how you live your life. So yes, he would support dissidence, but he wouldn't support sort of, particularly radical Protestants. Yeah.
 I think the state is.
 You you had a right to property that that was long. Yeah. Mental ****.
 It wasn't.
 Yeah, yeah.
 Now there was a limit to the steps exactly, and it's it's very interesting as well as you say about the start copyright, but it's also the start of capitalism because it's the idea that how does he come to the idea of property? Is one of these three essential rights where he sort of does this, rationalising that he says, well, if I if I have one essential thing we know is that the individual has a has a freedom from being.
 Dictated to from being forced to do things that they don't want to do well. If I have that right. If I put my effort my energy into doing something, whether that's to build a house or painter artwork, technically part of me resides part of my individuality resides in that product that I have created. So property becomes almost a representation of the cell. So that's why there needs to be this negative freedom for the property, just as there needs to be a negative freedom.
 Or the individual and also the terms negative and positive freedom. We were discussing this last week, but negative freedom is to be free from so that the idea of thinkers who discuss negative freedom is to be free from something so free from oppression, free from.
 The tutorial government, free from being told what to do, how to act, how to how to practise your faith. Positive freedom, which doesn't come really about until the turn of.
 Suppose the turn of the.
 20th century, but sort of through the 1800s, particularly once you get to mill. Positive freedom is the idea that government has a responsibility to enable you to do things, so it's freedom to do so, freedom to go to school, freedom to, you know, have a hot meal, to have a roof over your head that's positive freedom. So in this time, we're only talking about negative freedom, freedom from something freedom from my property being taken away, freedom from the being forced into chains.
 Vision from me being you know.
 Yeah, at rest in any of those iterations, of course there are massively excluded elements of society, not only based on faith, which are what?
 Carol Pateman and Charles Mills. If anyone is interested, I would certainly recommend Charles Mills. The racial contract in Carol pavements, the sexual contract because they discussed these scholars for the very post modern perspective in the 80s and you see how obviously there are massively excluded elements and actually how a lot of the issues that we're rapping with today in terms of our Western society.
 Arrived from these scholars, ideas of who and how different individuals are included within the social contract and how certain individuals sit outside the social contract in a cloud of semi, part of it and 2nd off and all about.
 They both say that a lot of the issues we face today arise from those exclusions, but I won't go into that right now.
 Would you like to?
 Talk with any other comment. I'm just keeping a wary eye on the time because I want us to get to pain, but.
 I was really interested in systematic defence of the origin and cultural rights.
 Because.
 I don't think we think we just don't need to think like that.
 Something happens.
 Landlady dependent on your on your income.
 We would approach the situation like that. I think the first thing that will come into people's head is like, oh, you know, I'm self returning individual and.
 That problem.
 There's a lot.
 Yeah, yeah.
 Duty to the state.
 Things about.
 Self preservation basics.
 Property.
 Once you extend that labour property, evolve become your, but then just discussing that when you when you went out, we were just talking about the property and you mentioned how you'd like bounced it right to all the properties. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. I mean, I thought that was really interesting.
 Well.
 Yeah, we feel we blocked something in the way we don't seem to think about rights like that anymore.
 Yeah.
 The idea of rights.
 I think it's quite interesting as well. On a side point about rights and duties that there's another division we've talked about division between positive and negative, right. So there's also a division in social contract theories. So you have those who are called the contractualists who believe that there is an ethical standard.
 That sits outside of our kind of body politics, so to speak. So that ethics is something.
 External to the state and that the state will be built on that external method of ethics so that you know you can deduce from that so that it's obviously the church, you could say, well, I'll read Scripture and I will.
 Take the gospels. I will take the 10 Commandments. I'll take these different ethical standpoints to build my set on and compare to essentially, but then sort of relating to what you're saying, Jay, you have the then the contract termin who believe that actually our responsibilities, our duties, the way you should behave.
 Actually come from the state, as in they are only emerge as the state emerges, so we don't ever have them until a political state kind of structures itself literally based on necessity, essentially. And that and that's obviously a hobby in view. But like you have to say, there isn't really an external ethical state and that therefore things like rights emerge actually from the state itself rather than there being this kind of external idea of where rights, duties.
 Virtues, even ethics, sit. And that's the difference between contractualists and contract areas. So yeah, but after Russo, you have also, you could argue that someone like can is a contractor list.
 And you could say that other various kind of 19th century thinkers are sort of contractualists but very early on you have these contract areas who are saying what's the state, the state will define, what the rights duties are rather than there being a kind of ethical standpoint outside.
 That that's sort of a bit of a tangent, but relates to kind of where you were going.
 Does anyone have any sort of questions about lock his thought about Chapter 8 before we turn to pain because I'll do a sort of preamble about pain.
 Before we discuss pain.
 But I guess that's all too much. I think the idea of property as well.
 Different.
 To that.
 And you know, actually what? What a bit of land was called at this time. It was called a liberty. OK. Yeah. Sorry. I just wondered what you'd say about that.
 Freehold. You have the right to.
 Yeah.
 Ultimate.
 Which is exactly why they refer to any allocation of land to anyone at the time. As a liberty, we will give you a liberty of ex acres, because it's something that's been gifted as a freedom that can be taken back. Yeah. Well, we'll turn to pain.
 Right. So now that we've looked at lock, we'll look at pain. Tom's pain emerged from a modest and often unsuccessful early life to become one of the most influential voices of revolutionary and liberal thought. His firing pamphlet Common Sense rallied support for the American Revolution, even being read aloud to troops during their fight against British rule. In subsequent work, the rights of man inspired generations of liberals.
 By denouncing monarchy as a fraud.
 Position and advocating radical reform. Rejecting tradition for its own sake, Payne criticised gradual reformists as condescending elites who pity the plumage but forget the dying bird, emphasising the need for transformative change to address systemic inequalities.
 Payne's writings resonated with the working class, urging them to claim their rights rather than petition for them. For him, reason was the cornerstone of society and tradition without justification.
 Was Mary knows his radical ideas, foreshadowed the slow evolution of liberal social contract, culminating in the gradual expansion of suffragettry reforms in the 19th and earlier 20th century.
 Though incremental change followed this era, Paine's commitment to reason over ritual and ideals over ignorance at the stage modern Democratic thought.
 So one of his texts, this is just some supplementary stuff before we look at the text, we're reviewing the publication of Thomas Payne's age of Reason, a term that's used to refer to the Enlightenment of the 18th century mark. Both of critique and defence within the Enlightenment intellectual landscape. Hayley was born into a Quaker family and his liberal values and commitment to reason were shaped by his religious upbringing and the revolutionary fervour.
 The time, written largely during his imprisonment in Paris.
 Where he was held as an enemy of the Red Revolution, which is slightly ironic as Jack and I were discussing yesterday.
 Age of Reason reflects the complexities of an era defined by both the and scepticism. Pain supported enlightenment ideals such as reason and rational inquiry, critiquing the corruption of organised religion, while affirming a belief in the divine life. Voltaire, he rejected institutional dogma but maintained a nuanced perspective on faith encapsulated.
 Between tradition and progress, we characterise the age of Enlightenment.
 Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, is a foundational text of the American Revolution and a master work of political pamphleteering.
 A A recent immigrant to the American colonies penned the pamphlet in plain forcible language that resonated with a wide audience, breaking down complex political ideas into accessible arguments.
 At its core, common sense is an argument for American independence from Britain.
 Payne denounced monarchy as an inherently corrupt and tyrannical form of government, describing King George the third as a royal brute, he advocated for the establishment of a Republican government rooted in the consent of the governed as a more just and equitable system.
 Paine also tied the cause of independence to universal principles of liberty and natural rights, framing the revolution as not merely a colonial dispute but part of a broader struggle.
 For human freedom.
 The context of common sense was crucial to its success. In early 1776, tensions between Britain and its American colonies were reaching a boiling point. Events like the Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts and the Battles of Lexington and Concord, a galvanised colonial resistance. However, many colonists were still undecided about pursuing full independence.
 And loyalty to Britain remained strong among some.
 Maine's pamphlet shifted public opinion dramatically by presenting independence as not only necessary but inevitable. Its timing was also critical, appearing just months before the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense sold over 100,000 copies within a few months, reaching a vast audience and helping to unify disparate colonial voices into a cohesive revolutionary movement.
 Its impact was immediate and enduring, cementing pains reputation as one of the Revolution's most influential thinkers.
 And actually on a level courses now they they use common sense as one of the main factors. If you do a paper, it's one of the main factors that they put in there for the American Revolution. They obviously talk about economic issues. They talk about political tensions. But actually his pamphlet isn't one of the answers you can get.
 The rights of man, the rights of man, was published in two parts, 1791 and 92. It was a passionate defence of the French Revolution and a powerful critique of hereditary government and aristocracy.
 I'm not sure he would have been so fond of it two years later when he was sitting in a prison at the hands of French revolutionary powers, but written in response to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Pain's work argued that political institutions should be based on reason, equality, and the natural rights of the individuals rather than tradition or inherited privilege. Paying champion the idea that governments exist to serve the people, not the other way round.
 And called for sweeping reforms, including universal suffrage, the abolition of aristocratic privileges and social welfare programmes to alleviate poverty.
 His vision was radical for its time, presenting a blueprint for Democratic government and social justice.
 The context of the rights of man was shaped by the revolutionary fervour of the late 18th century. The French Revolution, which began in 1789, had polarised opinion across Europe, while supporters saw it as a beacon of liberty and progress. Critics like Berke viewed it as a dangerous upheaval that threatened social order. Pains work not only defended the revolution but also extended its principles.
 To argue for political form in Britain and beyond.
 His ideas resonated with the growing demands for democracy and rights among the working classes, but they also provoked outrage among the ruling elite. The sedition, forcing him to flee to France. Despite this, the rights of man was widely read and remains a Seminole text in the history of political thought, influencing movements for democracy and human rights around the world. I'm sorry, I sort of skipped a bit there, but.
 There's a funny anecdote, but if you know William Blake, that.
 Blake and Payne were both, and I meant to put this photo on there because I love it so much. But there's a brass model of it, but pain and blade were sitting in a pub, probably not too far away from here, and William Blake had heard that the police or the sort of militia of the day were out looking for Thomas Paine because of his seditious writing in the rights of man, and it was actually William Blake who saved Thomas Payne's life because he said you need to leave now.
 And he immediately went from that pub to a boat on the Thames.
 And that's when he left to the new world. So it's quite astonishing that it was Blake who saved such a great thinker. Yeah, few more questions there. So we can go through those. But Jack, maybe you'd like to start off with Robert that you have.
 I I've previously read the reflection on the resolution in front.
 Of agreement really clarified for me.
 The read is about and the themes that these things.
 Fundamental disagreement is whether you can wait, whether society should be this kind of heretic.
 Where where you should like the other intergenerational project that no one walk away from.
 Or not necessarily walk away from, but relatively revived, let's say completely disable root and redefine the term. That would be a better way of think.
 I got the impression in Berg that.
 The main point was that if you're gonna have a society, there needs to be some kind of security. The longevity of this project that.
 The term on which you've you've gone, it's settled. Yeah. And that.
 Where you might.
 Fall or there to do frame the game, we're all going to be playing if this is slightly involved and critique of the of the revolution in France.
 And that these guys should turn to law in their society, you know, to lay down a law and what is the lawfulness of the rooting of the law to make you a law? How are you taken seriously?
 New law you've put down once an old law has been completely demolished. Yeah. Yeah. And this wasn't just an intellectual criticism. The he knew France very well. Good work. And. And he had all these anecdotes from Brendan. There were talking about how the military.
 They're completely let the military, the revolutionary military, completely disintegrated, but it no longer had any discipline. They were just rioting. They were going around pillaging places.
 And they were very embarrassed about this fact that the cue of the revolution.
 All of which is to say.
 Yeah, I.
 I I would say with Bert on their debate whether hereditary society is preferable to.
 Yeah. Voluntary act, the kind of thing that we all withdraw from and rewrite to the.
 Constitution sometime.
 Soon. Yeah, yeah.
 I think makes him much more of a sort of positivist when it comes to human nature, which is another one of these kind of biomes here, which is like negativists, but those who are sceptical about the idea of what we are as individuals. If we were left alone unseen, and positivists in terms of those who think that we would actually be better in our own kind of uncovers, oppressed kind of manner, I'd say lock. I don't know about you, Peter.
 But I'd say in terms of his view of whether these are positivist or sort of more negative social, sorry.
 Human nature think I'd say he sits kind of at a sort of medium where he kind of thinks simply on the basis of the sort of idea of browser that we're not really particularly good or bad. We're sort of just So what I'd say what the point of getting at is pain almost feels like he's sitting closer to Russo here in the idea that it's both laws that have corrupted man. So for him, unlike Berke, Berkeley's social development is something which is a good thing that we've created these laws we have, we've had this evolution.
 Party and that is what is improving, but it's for someone like pain. He falls closer to Russo in the sense that actually, no, those are the things that are corrupt in mankind. So why not smash them and do away with them and bring in something revolutionary and fresh and new. So, yeah, I'd say he certainly fits closer there. However, he certainly sits close to lock in the sense of this privacy.
 On individual liberty and the back not infringed, and that maintaining these kind of traditions and these sorts of.
 What you know sort of ornaments of the past are redundant for a productive change in society at that point in time.
 I don't know how you sort of. What would you say, Jack? I wanted to ask the line in the in the declaration, the actual declaration.
 Article 3 The nation is the source of all.
 And and I wonder what if that would contradiction or or not? I have no idea of of the of the insistence on the individual liberty. It's not. It's not been rushed a bit as well. Yeah. On the one hand, there's that radical liberty.
 Sort of content out, yeah.
 That the freedom oral freedom, I think.
 And it is from the whole. Yeah, yeah.
 I don't know. I suppose again if you then link it to lock, society is formative for the individual. So.
 For the individual can only sort of self actualise flourish through a educational and supportive nation society state, whatever. So I suppose that's sort of an attempt of me saying you can synthesise it, but I can completely see the tension. I don't know how anyone else they would like to.
 I think I think.
 I know the 19th century.
 Individual.
 Much more about the individual as.
 I don't know.
 In that society.
 American Society.
 That was that was a society that hadn't developed but it.
 So if.
 It's.
 OK. So I mean that both.
 Ers.
 Of change and so Spain. But the difference is in Jack like, yeah, he's he's the method. So it is more.
 From his life part of.
 Thinking that change by.
 Who?
 On like bringing that pin by any means.
 Exactly for us, talk is more like reform, but also in order not to break the bond order so.
 When you.
 'Re just the same thing, but it's just the methods that.
 Would like to see that change.
 And and obviously both supports the American Revolution well, not supporting the French Revolution. So this is a yeah, right. And.
 Yeah.
 In English.
 SX, which were.
 Basically.
 Soldiers within the English army had to do it.
 To prove that they weren't Catholics.
 And he moved those tests and appointed quite a lot of officers who were pretty well known, secret Catholics as leading officers.
 So Burke reads that not as a revolution. It's called revolution. What happened was column that encountered column could be accounted for in the framework of the law. It's a bit of an unconventional, but perfectly legitimate.
 Yeah, we call it an exception. We, but we didn't. Framework and then.
 Are you doing the same thing with no rabbit or break just a bit of an uncertain time? Everything worked that it was supposed to.
 Kind of revolution, say.
 Not different, but I did a radical break.
 Yeah, actually that's very pain.
 Less passages is what I read out in one of the pieces, which is that his view of someone like Berk would be that, yes, they're both arguing for change. But that passage, he pities the plumage but forgets the dying bird you're assessing about kind of the the pain someone might. Burke is obsessing about kind of small things that will gradually.
 Deciding.
 Look at all the freedoms being taken away from individuals.
 You're messing around trying to solve little issues here and there, but actually we need to address the fundamental issues that have wronged masses of society.
 Evolutionary approach that he's taking.
 I think.
 I think you mentioned about the Quaker, yeah.
 Yes, I thought that was.
 Definitely, yeah.
 Yeah.
 And obviously it's and a certain separatism is obviously inherent in quite Britain as well, kind of separating from main societies. We've discussed at that time these kind of more puritanical groups who were unhappy to separate themselves from the kind of main body of society on their kind of middle.
 Went to America. Went to Pennsylvania. Yeah. Yeah. Pennsylvania. Yeah.
 I think I read I.
 Given.
 No, no, because he actually not being Quaker.
 He went, he went.
 Yeah, yeah.
 And how we've completely lost our head.
 Suddenly and a bunch of people rose together because we're in the land of.
 Do it yourself and re thinking and independent and independent thoughts and.
 It just made me think of what's going on now, obviously.
 Yeah.
 I did wonder whether it's a contextual element there as well, and we were discussing this last the last two weeks ago about Russo and his views within his time.
 Compared to today, which is this idea of a small state versus the large state in this relates to what we're saying, which is that pain was looking at quite small communities within within the new world and what he was envisaging.
 Is what he's looking at really quite similar to what we were saying about Russo, which is that he's kind of ideal state ultimately, it's actually quite a small state. So as if, like in the USA, state would have its almost ultimate authority over its settle and trying to expand these ideas to such a manner, country or nation as America now or as France when we've discussed Brussels doesn't work because they all rely on at least having some form of ability to have a sort of.
 Interaction with your neighbour and be able to discuss things within a kind of civil debate is the idea. I think that's given Trump too much.
 Yeah.
 I'm not sure.
 No, but trying trying to come to some sort of.
 People with yeah, I definitely can't put it in Trump's head. It is peer agree. But why that attracted them that?
 The land of don't tell me what?
 Yeah, yeah.
 However, the social responsibility element perhaps is lost because.
 Of such a large.
 Land mass. I mean, when you're taking ideas that were formed within societies that were so small and then tried to base them on entrenched constitution, like in America, but takes ideas from this time. But then it struck allies them to a kind of larger landmass that they weren't thinking about at this time. Can you really even implement an idea of pains in a modern day?
 That's so large.
 Yeah.
 This evening 122.
 That may be the.
 Obviously.
 Idea that we have obligations to others. We could knocking on your door the way it was 100.
 You see that more directly.
 Yeah.
 Clearly, his ideas didn't fit well with the large society even in his day, because as we thought in the age of Reason section, when he goes to France, his ideas of taking rights, not petitioning for them, isn't particularly well liked by the revolutionary French authorities, and they arrest him. So a large state really doesn't react well, even though he's partly inspired by that movement. He's also arrested by that movement.
 And you know, I suppose.
 What I've moved you then kind of more closing session points would be how do we see lots influence then directly on pay? Now we've all got some ideas of mock and pain.
 How is lock influencing pain? How can we see that red from lock to pain?
 Or where where are their splinters? Where are different?
 Authority.
 OK. Yeah, it was. I think where is?
 Lock pain.
 Individuals.
 And and like Jack said, he's quite specific about it because he doesn't support in.
 1680.
 185 that can save 1685, the Duke of Monmouth lands in my regions.
 And locked and his Co conspirators who will take part in the Rye House plot to try and assert James do not support the Dutch of Monmouth, who arrives in Lyme Regis and tries to rally tubes in the West Country. 'cause. They believe that he's just in it for self-interest. He's not in it to actually fundamentally return Britain to a good society. So on the point that you're both making, yes, he believes that there can be some change of ruler.
 To enable society. But he certainly doesn't allow any old person to say Oh well, just because I'm a different ruler, I might be better. There has to be a grounding for why a ruler should be yourself.
 And the Duke of Monmouth did not fit that, and Lord Russell's wife said something along the lines fairly self-interest, unlike my husband, who at the right house plot there. So in later.
 Yeah, certainly because there's a couple of attempts to you certain games and only one of them is seen by someone like lock as a genuine attempt.
 It shouldn't just be done over and over again for the sake of it. It should have. It has to have a solid bounding to be able to justify the use of Asian.