Talk:John Locke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee John Locke was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 21, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Inconsistency over Milton[edit]

In this article, Milton is described as "a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms". In the article on Milton, it is noted correctly that Milton called for freedom for Protestants only and wanted the suppression of the opinions of atheists, Jews, Moslems and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See John Milton in the section on Religious toleration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See John Milton#Views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I will delete the sentence. I cannot access the source, its from a 1962 text by a German expert on the history of Protestantism, not the most obvious source one would choose for this article. This article says that Locke was influenced by the Protestant tradition, but does not explain how. And of course few if any people support freedom in all its forms, just those forms that they consider legitimate. TFD (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

measuring locke's impact through influence in united states' "declaration of independence"[edit]

i am sorry,

after much thought i just do not find it acceptable to qualitative describe the great John Locke's impact through impact on the United States.

i am not saying that the united states didn't idolise him (they did, like the losers they are), i am just stating his work is much more than just influencing the united states.

can we start the discussion on how else to describe his impact? being canadian i find it hard to really explain just how influential his ideas were, prior to toronto's cokeheads going on a rampage with mitt, of course. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016[edit]

I would like to change the word "characterize" in this article because it is spelled wrong. The article spells it "characterise." The misspell can be found under the section "Political Theory" on the first line.

Klamath Bob (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done, as characterised is spelled correctly. Locke was English, so this article is written in British English - Arjayay (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: the phrase "Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury" is wrong. It should be just Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. The usage Lord + Christian name + Surname is reserved to the younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.217.108 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding in John Locke on ideas and accompanying critique[edit]

On Ideas[edit]

The premise of Locke’s argument in his Essay of Human Understanding, where he examines the ‘origin’ of ideas through way of human knowledge and “degrees of belief, opinion, and assent”, is that ideas and knowledge are developed from experience rather than being bestowed at birth (Uzgalis). There are three main points that he details in his argument: first, the nature of knowledge; then moral belief and faith; lastly the varieties of knowledge. Locke begins with questioning the validity of the assumed origin of ideas and knowledge, what are known as “certain innate principles. These are conceived as primary notions; letters printed on the mind of man, so to speak—which the soul receives when it first comes into existence, and that it brings into the world with it” (Locke, John, George Berkeley, and David Hume, 8). An example of this that Locke uses is one of children who come into the world without having “immediately perceived” these principles but gradually learning them as they grow and come into society (Uzgalis). He goes on to attack “dispositional accounts”, the proposition that states that innate principles are not always perceived at the same time but rather that they are triggered by certain events, actions, etc.(Uzgalis). However, these “do not provide an adequate criterion” for differentiating between innate propositions and the ones that the mind discovers and learns through experience (Locke, John, and Jonathan Bennet). From this, Locke moves into moral belief. He says that moral ideas were “inventions of the human mind” and not innate, yet the reasoning and understanding of these ideas need a higher being, which Locke bases upon Christian religious views (Dunn, 168). Since there is such a God, then, there must be a reason, regarding principles, as to why the “non-moral ones that are claimed to be innate are of no great use, and the moral ones that are claimed to be innate are not self-evident, and nothing distinguishes those two groups from some other truths that are not said to be innate” (Locke, John, and Jonathan Bennet). In other words, the non-moral principles that are simply within a person are not used because it would go against the moral values set by the community, the moral principles that are “claimed” to be innate are not seen as obvious or pronounced, and nothing separates these innate principles from ones set by the community. Locke concludes with the varieties of knowledge, reiterating that knowledge comes from experience; yet it is not only experience that brings knowledge but intuition and sense perception as well. Lizzie wizard (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizzie wizard: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding in Critique on Locke on Ideas[edit]

Critique on Locke's on Ideas[edit]

Within Locke’s argument there are many good points given as to why there cannot be innate knowledge, the best being that children do not know what they should and should not do. There is truth in that all things must be learned; in life there are the accepted rules of respecting one another, such as when a child picks up something pointy and proceeds to poke the child next to them without a second thought; in religion, to keep with the Christian worldview, the Ten Commandments, which dictate the simplest rules of living. However, Locke does not do a good job of explaining where the sense of inherent morality is from; that feeling of that something is good or bad without any rules dictating it; that “gut feeling”. Innate ideas and principles are necessary for the stability of religion, morality and natural law. His views contradict this and many of the rationales behind the creation, consequences, and rewards for laws created throughout history until the modern day. Locke also uses simple ideas often and allows the reader to ‘fill in the gaps’ so to speak. This has led to many possible interpretations on his text and “although many [philosophers/readers] understand ideas as mental objects, some understand them as mental acts”, which can change the meaning of Locke’s explanation and purpose(Connoly). Another critique that often comes up from his Essay is: if ideas are indeed the immediate objects of experience, how is it possible to know that there is anything beyond them? Locke answers this saying that “perception is a natural process and thus ordained by God,” therefore it cannot be untrue or misleading (Rogers). In the 18th century as well as modern age, where individual liberties are growing more and more important and ideas on God are becoming more elastic, this explanation wavers under skepticism and lack of ‘rational’ explanation, possibly undermining many of his arguments and reasoning due to the assumption of God and the general like-mindedness that he presumes his readers will have.Lizzie wizard (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizzie wizard: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)