Talk:William Godwin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Dangers of using the 1911 Encyclopedia
Includes three novels "now forgotten", which includes the quite famous Caleb Williams. Mandel July 2, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Anarchists
I'm done reverting, due to the 3RR. But the point wasn't whether he was an anarchist. It was whether we should categorize him as one. There are numerous sources claiming Jesus was the first anarchist, but I'm not about to put that in the top of his article and add him to the category. At present we don't categorize anyone who predate the term "anarchism" as anarchist, because this is a clear example of retroactive naming. As I've already said on List of anarchists, I have no problem with Godwin, Thoreau, et al included on a loose list of anarchists. But a category is very rigid, and I think should be used only very carefully. We don't presently use the category for anyone predating anarchism, and if Godwin is included then we'll have to dig around and do the same for others. I don't think this is a good direction at all. It seems to me an attempt to legitimize Godwin as the first anarchist instead of Proudhon. Sarge Baldy 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Proudhon was certainly not the first anarchist; Proudhon was just the first person to call himself an anarchist. Godwin is definitely an anarchist. But, it doesn't whether you or I think he's an anarchist. What matters is the sources. The sources say he was an anarchist (I happen to agree, but that doesn't matter). As far as I know, whether or not he was one is not even disputed. As far as I know, nobody seriously claims that he wasn't an anarchist. Everybody knows he was an anarchist, except for you. RJII 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- If Godwin was so obviously the first anarchist, why does the 1911 encyclopedia not use the word anarchist or anarchism once in his article? [1] And don't get me wrong, I even like Godwin. And of course he practiced a philosophy which is essentially anarchism. It just leaves debates as to who else we should retroactively apply terms to. Next thing you know we'll have people calling Robert Owen a Marxist and Georg Simmel a postmodernist. I think discussion and arguments to that effect is beneficial, but to definitively label people under terms that did not exist during their lifetime seems POV. Sarge Baldy 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be an active controversy and the term anarchist is used to describe Godwin's writings frequently in the entry, but I just wanted to point out that the worries about describing him in such terms rely on a false premise: that the philosophical identity of a person's writings are somehow parasitic on the language used to express them. Whether or not Godwin called himself an 'anarchist' has no bearing on whether his political theory was anarchist - the same goes for his status as a utilitarian. SamuelSpade79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.6.174 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atheist?
I read here: http://web.quipo.it/frankenstein/maryshelley.htm taht he was an atheist? Is it true? IronCrow 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Godwin became an atheist during his life. For example see here: http://www.historyguide.org/thesis/chapter1.html Curi 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section removed (original research)
[edit] The fate of Godwin's radicalism
While his work was considered unacceptably radical at the time, it is surprising how many of his radical ideas are now commonly accepted across the West. Examples include:
- People should only be judged on their abilities.
- War should only be allowed to protect a country's liberties or the liberties of another country.
- Colonialism is immoral.
- Democracy is more efficient than other forms of government, as it allows everyone to voice their opinion, rather than centralising power in a fallible monarch. However, majority rule places individual liberty of those in the minority in jeopardy.
- Government close to the people is best.
- Individuals should give to others in need.
- Rehabilitation should be provided for criminals.
- One should have a sphere of private judgement over issues that do not threaten the security of other people, as opposed to the legislated Christianity of his time.
- Censorship prevents the truth from being recognized and should only be used when there is an immediate security risk.
His critique of state education is something that has not been widely accepted, except by libertarians. It also runs counter to Wollstonecraft's own proposal for state-supported education in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
All his radical reforms were to be done by discussion, and matured change resulting from discussion. Hence, while Godwin thoroughly approved of the philosophic schemes of the precursors of the Revolution, he was as far removed as Burke himself from agreeing with the way in which they were carried out. So logical and uncompromising a thinker as Godwin could not go far in the discussion of abstract questions without exciting the most lively opposition in matters of detailed opinion. An affectionate son, and always ready to give some of his hard-earned income to more than one poor brother, he maintained that natural relationship had no claim on man, nor was gratitude to parents or benefactors any part of justice or virtue. In a day when the penal code was still extremely severe, he argued gravely against all punishments[1], not only that of death. Property was to belong to those who most wanted it. However, he still saw a need for some respect for other people's belongings, as this was seen as part of their "right to private judgment" (or 'right of private judgment'), which he valued highly.
Godwin's essays advocating a society without government that are considered some of the first, if not the first, anarchist treatises. As such, some consider the liberal British writer to be the "father of philosophical anarchism." He advocates an extreme form of individualism, proposing that all sorts of cooperation in labour should be eliminated; he says: "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil." Godwin's individualism is to such a radical degree that he even opposes individuals performing together in orchestras. The only apparent exception to this opposition to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. One reason he opposes cooperation is he believes it to interfere with an individual's ability to be benevolent for the greater good. Godwin opposes the existence of government and expressly opposes democracy, fearing oppression of the individual by the majority (though he believes democracy to be preferable to dictatorship). Godwin supports individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." However, he does advocate that individuals give to each other their surplus property on the occasion that others have a need for it, without involving trade (see gift economy). This was to be based on utilitarian principles; he says: "Every man has a right to that, the exclusive possession of which being awarded to him, a greater sum of benefit or pleasure will result than could have arisen from its being otherwise appropriated." However, benevolence was not to be enforced but a matter of free individual "private judgement." He does not advocate a community of goods or assert collective ownership as is embraced in communism, but his belief that individuals ought to share with those in need was influential on anarchist communism later. Communist-anarchist Peter Kropotkin says in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that Godwin "entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political Justice."
This text is manifestly not from the Encyclopedia Brittanica; and since there are no citations, do so well as to move it into a separate article (and mark it with the requirement for citations) or else restore the text after supplying the citations. --VKokielov (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Twain's reaction to Godwin
I can recount Mark Twain's reaction to Godwin in "In Defence of Harriet Shelley," for all who desire to see it. Or go and see it yourself, and ask out loud who (of the dead people, anyway) is more familiar: Twain or Godwin. I know that's a bad argument these days, but it still has force, according to the very same principles that would admit that long smirking ramble about how Godwin's philosophy was discounted but now reflects reality - as though today's reality is blameless and there's no other point of view. --VKokielov (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- When Shelley encountered Mary Godwin he was looking around for another paradise. He had, tastes of his own, and there were features about the Godwin establishment that strongly recommended it. Godwin was an advanced thinker and an able writer. One of his romances is still read, but his philosophical works, once so esteemed, are out of vogue now; their authority was already declining when Shelley made his acquaintance --that is, it was declining with the public, but not with Shelley. They had been his moral and political Bible, and they were that yet. Shelley the infidel would himself have claimed to be less a work of God than a work of Godwin. Godwin's philosophies had formed his mind and interwoven themselves into it and become a part of its texture; he regarded himself as Godwin's spiritual son. Godwin was not without self-appreciation; indeed, it may be conjectured that from his point of view the last syllable of his name was surplusage. He lived serene in his lofty world of philosophy, far above the mean interests that absorbed smaller men, and only came down to the ground at intervals to pass the hat for alms to pay his debts with, and insult the man that relieved him. Several of his principles were out of the ordinary. For example, he was opposed to marriage. He was not aware that his preachings from this text were but theory and wind; he supposed he was in earnest in imploring people to live together without marrying, until Shelley furnished him a working model of his scheme and a practical example to analyze, by applying the principle in his own family; the matter took a different and surprising aspect then. The late Matthew Arnold said that the main defect in Shelley's make-up was that he was destitute of the sense of humor. This episode must have escaped Mr. Arnold's attention.
- [2]
- --VKokielov (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
