Talk:William Godwin

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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

References

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)

Cause of death

What did Godwin die of? The Cholera#Famous_cholera_victims article says cholera, but he lived to 80, does anyone have a source? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's Sandemanian Connection

The Sandemanian connection for William Godwin is limited. Godwin was eight years old when Sandeman left for Boston. Cantor reviews this connection on pages 94 and 95 of his 1991 biography about Michael Faraday. Godwin was raised a Calvinist, but studied with Samuel Newton in Norwich for many years. While Samuel Newton was clearly influenced by Sandeman’s writings, his congregation was never formally associated the Sandemanian Church. As such, his congregation would not fall under Sandemanian discipline. There is no written record of Newton or Godwin ever confessing their faith in a Sandemanian congregation. That being said, some of their views reflected those originally expressed by Robert Sandeman.CUoD (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the use of the word "libertarian"

What I'm about to say is American-centric and I apologize but I think it will improve the article. Anyways, the term "libertarian" is thrown around this article at times, and I think it's worth pointing out that in America, and to American readers, this refers to a pro-laissez-faire ideology that still maintains a need for government. As many anarchists a)are opposed to an entirely unrestricted market and b) think that government is illegitimate inherently, I think we ought to shy away from the term libertarian here unless it's qualified. Since it's often unclear of what usage the person writing the article intended, it can be misleading. Also, as people like Peter Marshall (Demanding the Impossible) point out, while American libertarians and anarchists share some superficial qualities, many people consider the "anarcho-capitalist" label (that some libertarians take up) as a misusage of the word "anarcho." In fact, some American anarchists are mildly indignant that the word "libertarian" has been co-opted by the right, in their opinion. I think there's ample evidence to avoid usage of this term, especially since Godwin seems to pretty clearly fall into the the social or "left" anarchist tradition. "I knew of nothing worth the living for but usefulness and the service of my fellow-creatures." --> pretty clearly not an individualist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.58.184 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian is a broad term meaning a government of non-aggression. So it encompasses anarchists who favor no government. Miniarchists who favor very limited government and so on. Youre statement on individualist not being useful or to service of fellow creatures is a huge fallacy. Helping others is a major part of most right libertarians. Helping without a gun to your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Influenced Kropotkin?

I would like to dispute the fact that Godwin influenced Kropotkin in any major way. According to p.349 of a biography on Godwin (Locke, D. (1980) A fantasy of reason (Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd: London)) Kropotkin 'only came to [An Enquiry Concerning Political justice] after he had developed his own ideas'

Tolstoy, on the other hand, who is not listed currently, according to the biography was the only one of that group (Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin and himself) who was majorly influenced by it. --87.112.245.236 (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Contesting the Neutrality of the Biography

The following passage from the William Godwin page is not cited and is a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy:

"Godwin came to London in 1782, still nominally as a minister, to regenerate society with his pen — a real enthusiast, who shrank theoretically from no conclusions from the premises which he laid down. He adopted the principles of the Encyclopaedists, and his own aim was the complete overthrow of all existing institutions, political, social and religious. He believed, however, that calm discussion was the only thing needful to carry every change, and from the beginning to the end of his career he deprecated every approach to violence. He was a philosophic radical in the strictest sense of the term." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.49.211 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Son

Son William Godwin Jr. (with second wife) is missing from infobox. Apparently not notable, but should presumably be listed. (I'll leave it to a more competent editor to correct the omission.) 141.157.189.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Godwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828113812/http://www.enotes.com/gothic-literature/godwin-william to http://www.enotes.com/gothic-literature/godwin-william

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Caleb Williams

I am removing the claim of Caleb Williams as the first mystery novel. It's a nice claim, but since it isn't even mentioned on the novel's own page, it doesn't seem substantiated. 209.99.219.138 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)