- Swaraj or ‘Home rule’ and ‘satyagraha’, the most complex of the three, was translated by Gandhi (1869-1948) as ‘soul force’ but it’s usually known as ‘passive resistance’.
Swaraj to Gandhi did not just mean the state of affairs of the Indian nation at the time of British rules, but it was a criticism on the nature of how western capitalism and imperialism had come to dominate the world.
How these two concepts relate is that Gandhi wanted to oppose the British rule in India but his religious belief and his respect for life were so profound that he realised that using violence would be counterproductive. He essentially saw past his own goals to the fact that deep down we’re all people and we all deserve to live a life without pain, he was very accepting of other religious beliefs and was fond of the teachings of Jesus and the idea of loving your enemy. He didn’t necessarily see the other side as his enemy that needed punishment, rather as someone that needed to be made aware of the injustices they had wrought on others.
- Gandhi’s non-violent resistance was used in various ways as a form of civil disobedience, simple things like pulling your children out of British schools, boycotting British goods, refusing to pay taxes and refusing the British services became ways to protest the British rule in a non-violent.
These techniques are very effective as they minimise the backlash of the British forces, in Gandhi’s view violent protests would only lead to more violence, to overcome the British rule protesters had to not only be non-violent but also not hate the British because hate would just lead to more hate.
The drawback to this type of protest is there is that you can encourage a whole nation to not hate their oppressors but not everyone is as centred as Gandhi and of course peaceful non-violent protests did result in death of protestors and you can only push a non-violent protest of normal people before they erupt into violence.
- Swaraj can refer to self governance or self rule but often referred to as ‘home-rule’ by Gandhi.
It obviously refers to the states of the British rule of India at the time and what he’s saying is Britain should not have the power to rule over India, that their type of governance will not be compatible with India and he is instead advocating home governance, basically allowing India to govern itself.
On the other hand it also refers to inner self control, so you essentially cannot have a self control of a country if you can’t have self control of yourself, which ties in with his feelings towards non-violence. If you have no self control, no control over your emotions and you lack the ability to love and understand your oppressor’s non-violence is not a possibility.
- Gandhi believed that ‘satya’ or truth was the truthfulness of word and deed is vital to politics and life, the absolute truth is the only ultimate reality.
The ultimate truth to Gandhi is god and morality.
In Plato’s Euthyphro, in which Socrates is discussion with Euthyphro the nature of piety. Euthyphro basically says that piety is what all gods love but do the gods love something because it is pious or is something pious because gods love it?
In other words is something good because god commands it or is it just good so god commands it. Is god actually defining what is good and we’re just going along with what he says because he god or is good something separate from god and he/she is simply directing/guiding us to it?
So basically how this differs from Gandhi is that Gandhi is saying god is truth and Plato is hypothesising that god possibly just dictates morality and is not morality, morality and god are separate and can exist independently.
- According to Wollstonecraft women were ill prepared socially for the world around them, imprisoned in a web of societal expectations that were essentially lies and these lies would inevitably lead them to misery.
She believed women had to be properly educated in order to become real people, in her definition that meant somebody that was ruled by themselves and followed reason.
I agree with this I do think a lot of pressure is put on women to look a certain way and to act a certain way and it all seems to be something specifically characterised by men, to a point where what it is to be a woman is something men like, so they try to fulfil this role and it just doesn’t work.
- Wollstonecraft thought it necessary to teach women independence from men so that they would not be financially and socially dependant on a man and thus would be able to care for themselves and their children without the need to marry out of necessity or remarry if widowed.
She also thought women should want full citizenship and should work for it because what she’s saying is that the web of social expectations should first be overcome and then you can decide who you want to be. I think her arguments are persuasive because she urges women to use reason as opposed to just sinking into ill-conceived gender roles made by men.
- Wollstonecraft was a feminist in the sense that she was an enlightened political and moral thinker that sought the clarification of societal changes that would necessarily need to occur to bring about a world where men and women to be equally as virtuous in their private and public lives and as a result lead to a measure of happiness for both sexes.
This differs from modern feminist thinkers as happiness is substituted instead for power and main goal is not equality but is instead more adversarial putting men on one side women on the other in this endless ill-gotten war for dominance.
S. K. Joseph (2012) Swaraj and Governance. Retrieved from
http://publication.gvpwardha.in/archives/7
S. Murphy (1991) Retrieved from
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/brief_philosophy/brief_philosophy.html
S. Tomaselli (2008) Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wollstonecraft/
