Talk:John Locke

Timeline The article suggests that Locke became interested in ideas being developed by the Royal Society when he was at Oxford in the 1650's. The Royal Society as such was not created until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. Would it not be better to clarify that the time when he was at Oxford refers to the "Invisble Society?"

Additional Influences

I am adding to the list of Locke's influences as they are key people to his ideas.

Francis Bacon - Inductive Reasoning

Pierre Gassendi - Proponent of Inductive Reasoning, Appealed to Locke (both were alike in beliefs)

Information obtained from the book: Faiella, Graham. (2006). John Locke: Champion of Modern Democracy (Philosophers of the Enlightenment). The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.

--ShadowSlave 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Locke influenced Robert Nozick. 128.164.242.14 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban The Use of Influence

The article states, "Locke's views influenced the American and French Revolutions." Would it kill you to put some detail into that paragraph? What does it mean to influence the American and French Revolutions? Burke, for example, denounced the French Revolution while praising the American Revolution. "Influenced" is such a weasel word. Pooua 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, both the American and the French revolutionaries liked what they read in the Two Treatises of Government and incorporated bits of it into their rhetoric. In fact, Declaration of Independence is written to satisfy the requirements for legitimate revolution spelled out in the Treatises. I'm not sure what Burke's denunciation of one and praise of the other has anything to do with it. RJC ^Talk 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point being, both Locke and Burke could be said to have influenced both the American and French revolutions, but that much does not reveal the significant differences of view or influence held by these two. In fact, it would not reveal any difference in views or influence held by any 2 people, no matter how greatly different those views and influences are. So, the article should have more information in it, instead of a vague, "Locke's views influenced..." Pooua 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC) ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.72.53 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC) i like i like i like pie

blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.53.91 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bennett link

I haven't read a lot of bennett's publication, nor studied locke in his original form, but i believe te link is valuable. The site states its rationale and methods (helping students understand the language, not modifying arguments). Jonathan Bennett (philosopher) is an academic authority of the period. The resource is linked or referred to by numerous university pages. And of course there is nothing commercial there, except for the url's suffix. So what's bad? (The only problem is, the Treatise files aren't available yet) trespassers william (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, [1]

• We don't put links to cliffnotes or sparknotes, nor do we put links to pages that people think are helpful. The problem is it's linkspam, added by an account that does nothing but add links from this site. RJC ^Talk 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One user's judgment and intentions are irrelevant, but "helpful" (and reliable) is exactly what's in links. Sparknotes, from what I've seen, is a commercial site, written by students, with no clear editorial policies. Our case is an expert resource, and while it is not peer reviewed, it gets positive reaction from other professionals. Would you cite something from Wikipedia:External links or another relevant page that condemn it? I agree the manner in which the link was first added should rise suspicion at any time, but there are obvious other factors. trespassers william (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bennett Locke link (which has been there for a long time) is a link to two of Locke's works - to that and nothing else. It is non-standard only in that the works appear in versions that have been modified (not dumbed down) so as to be more easily readable by today's readers. I can't see why this is contrary to the spirit and intention of Wikipedia. --Jonathan Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by I1cDcet (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see why professor Bennett has chosen the ECHU of all books to make 'more easily readable'. While some historical philosophical literature is certainly difficult to understand for today's younger readers, Locke's work is surely at the very bottom of that list. Whatever Bennett's reasons may have been, the project as such is too controversial to justify placing a link to it.Dolly1612 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased

Pardon me if this has been said before, but does it not seem slightly biased to say "greatly influenced?" It is an encyclopedia, and even if it IS true that he had high influence in science, it seems that there should be a different word used. G man yo (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --Beaker342 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we use weasel words? It seems to me that it matters only whether it's true or not. And if it's true, then we can find a reference in some book on Locke by some respectable scholar to support the claim. That ought to be enough. The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shouldn't prevent it from saying that someone had great influence if it's a fact that he did, on the contrary in that case it ought to inform the reader of this fact. --140.180.21.96 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Epistemology

It seems to me that what this article most urgently needs is a section on Locke's epistemology. Along with Hume Locke is the most influential empiricist in the history of philosophy and as such one of the most influential early modern philosophers. There ought to be a section explaining his theory as set forth in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. --140.180.21.96 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whigs

"Though Locke was associated with the influential Whigs, his ideas about natural rights and government are today considered quite revolutionary for that period in English history." This is to misunderstand the nature of the Whig position in the seventeenth century. It was revolutionary and shocking to contemporaries. The facet of smug, self-satisfied Whiggery only came to the fore with the exercise of power, particularly Walpole two generations later. The 'influential Whigs' of Locke's time (Algernon Sidney, Shaftesbury) were revolutionary so it is misleading to start the proposition with 'Though....' .Jatrius (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There were both radical and moderate Whigs. The former were responsible for the Monmouth Rebellion, and quickly fell into political irrelevance following its failure. Those Whigs who made common cause with the Tories to bring William of Orange into England were far more moderate. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still erroneous to talk of crystallised parties in this age. The term 'Party' itself was viewed only in a pejorative sense. Far easier to talk of Court and Country as party identifiers. Those who clung to the term Whig in the 1680s were most definitely revolutionary in their outlook and that includes the entirety of James II's reign and the loathing that William III maintained towards the majority of them despite their championing of his cause.Jatrius (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Every Locke scholar I have read who made reference to Locke's political associations has associated him with the Whigs. This includes those from the Cambridge school, which has a particularly pedantic approach to declaring certain words anachronistic and forbidding anyone their use. I haven't seen any reliable source that objects to calling those portions of the English aristocracy who worked to bring William of Orange into England (who weren't Tories) Whigs; if any exists, it seems that it is a minority view. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Introductory statements

"He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas."

Change to

"He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas."

There is a problem with wiki in general and it has serious implications here. As a Christian philosopher how could Locke fail to make claims as one? That is, how could he go against Christian philosophy? So, either we drop the entire section of Christian philosophy since so many Christians hold different philosophical views or we fix this sentence. "Locke, as a Christian philosopher, held that there were no innate ideas" would be the correct. After all, what exactly Descartes' religious views were is contentious, not Locke's. --75.185.43.130 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no two books that discuss Locke's religious views agree, I would say that his views are highly contentious. Conscience is an innate idea and has certainly been central to Christian thought for most of the last two thousand years. A denial of conscience was out of step with the thought of Christians at Locke's time, at least. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

republicanism

due to reverts by RJC i am rising the issue of Locke's republicanism. i do not know why rjc consider this issue as "hotly disputed" while social contract theory is at the core of republican way of thinking. shouldn't this be removed as well following rjc line? if this is hotly disputed issue there should be some literature on it - thus i call for references. --discourseur 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone outside of the Cambridge school of historiography who does call Locke a republican. He is more often associated with the beginnings of liberalism. As for references: Richard Cox, Locke on War and Peace; Ruth Grant, John Locke's Liberalism; Peter Josephson, The Great Art of Government; Harvey Mansfield, Taming the Prince; Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism; Martin Seliger, The Liberal Politics of John Locke; A. John Simmons, On the Edge of Anarchy and The Lockean Theory of Rights; Alex Tuckness, Locke and the Legislative Point of View; Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke and Equality; Michael Zuckert, Launching Liberalism; among others. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

in given references there is nothing that challenges republicanism of locke. quite opposite it is liberalism that is the issue that have to be disputed. i call for references that challenge republicanism. --discourseur 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. These sources say that Locke was a liberal. Republicanism is contrasted with liberalism. Whether distinguished by the question of what constitutes "liberty" or by hostility toward monarchy, they put Locke on the liberal side of the divide. Those who argue for the view that Locke was a typical republican argue against these authors; these authors argue against those who put forward the view that Locke was a typical republican. Pocock attacks the view that Locke is a liberal, strongly suggesting the existence of people who say that he is; "The Myth of John Locke and the Obsession with Liberalism," in John Locke: Papers read at a Clark Library Seminar, 10 December 1977, by J. G. A. Pocock and Richard Ashcraft (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1980). You can say that it is wrong to call Locke a liberal, not a republican, but you cannot say that there is no dispute. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

so here you are. if there is about liberalism in article on locke, there should be also about republicanism. or there should be none of them. --discourseur 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But liberalism isn't mentioned at length in the article. Aside from a brief reference in the opening paragraphs, which could be augmented with a parallel reference to classical republicanism, it is noted that he exerted an influence "on a classical republicanism and much later on a modern liberalism." The section on the Constitution of Carolinas notes that enemies of liberalism have also been critical of Locke. These are the only mentions of liberalism in the entire thing. Nowhere in the article is he called a liberal: the word is entirely absent from the section on "Political Theory." RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

so opening paragraph should be complemented with republicanism and "see also" as well. --discourseur 09:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Personhood theory

It is misleading to say that Locke thought the body was important to the identification of the Self - he clearly states that it is consciousness which solely identifies the person - see paragraph 16 of 'Of Identity and Diversity' in Essays. He was probably the first philosopher to separate psychological aspects of the person and identify them as being the criteria of personhood. See Mary Ford, 'The Personhood Paradox and The 'Right to Die Medical Law Review, 13, Spring 2005, p.85.

vintage_beanpole. 29-08-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage beanpole (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Influences in the modern world

John lock has experienced a resurgence in importance in todays world, and there are a few places where this has been especially true.

One interesting place john locke has appeared in is the philosophical American Lincoln Douglas debate, even leading to a quote from internationally renowned Tom Sanford, "John Locke; more than a man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsanford (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished editing.

I put information used on my History Fair, to contribute to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savo187 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Locked

This article is locked. lololololololol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.223.223 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

government

that they wanted people to give up some of there right so they could do what they wanted .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.3.216 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No "popular culture" section?

I'd've expected that Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" (actually, maybe even the saga on the whole) was notable enough to mention in this article... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  By Herman Verelst
• 
  By Michael Dahl
• 
  By John Greenhill
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller

I'm replacing the lead image with the first one, which is a higher res version of the same portrait. Dcoetzee 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke on Personal Identity / Self

The section "Self" currently uses page numbers to refer to public domain text, so it's hard to verify the quotes. But regardless, traditionally Locke is said to believe that the self is merely the continuity of consciousness, and that substance is irrelevant. The section on Self uses quotes from Locke discussing the notion of "man", which is completely different than that of self and personal identity. See An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chap. xxvii: Of identity and diversity, paragraphs 10-11, 23-26.

• "The question being what makes the same person, and not whether it be the same identical substance, which always thinks in the same person, which in this case matters not at all. Different substances, by the same consciousness (where they do partake in it) being united into one person; as well by different bodies, by the same life are united into one animal, whose identity is preserved, in that change of substances, by the unity of one continued life. For it being the same consciousness that makes a man be himself to himself, personal identity depends on that only, whether it be annexed only to one individual substance, or can be continued in a succession of several substances. For as far as any intelligent being can repeat the idea of any past action with the same consciousness it had of it at first, and with the same consciousness it has of any present action; so far it is the same personal self. (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 10) [emphasis preserved]
• "Thus we see the substance, whereof personal self consisted at one time, may be varied at another, without the change of personal identity: there being no question about the same person, though the limbs, which but now were a part of it, be cut off." (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 11) [emphasis preserved]
• "Consciousness alone makes self. Nothing but consciousness can unite remote existences into the same person, the identity of the substance will not do it. For whatever substance there is, however framed, without consciousness, there is no person: and a carcass may be a person, as well as ny sort of substance be so without consciousness." (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 23) [emphasis preserved]

--Nathanmx (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)