Changes

|Summary='''John Locke (1632-1704)''' was a British philosopher, writer and political activist. Among his most notable works is ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'', which provides a defense of empiricism and the origins of ideas and understanding. In this work, Locke rejects the idea of innate principles, and argues against their existence, offering his own methods as to how humans generate knowledge. Locke has also written on religious toleration and social contract theory.|Historical Context=While studying at Oxford, Locke was heavily involved in religion exposed Scholasticism—the Aristotelian-influenced course of study at the time—and found that he did not like it and politics in the 17th centuryhad no use for it. He left this course of study [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. His participation in the modern science resulted from his close ties 4]] and picked up medicine and chemistry, where he became acquainted with Robert Boyle[[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. Locke 5]] and ascribed to Boyle’s his Corpuscular HypothesisTheory, which stated that the natural world was composed of small, invisible pieces of matter called corpuscles. The empiricism and epistemology To Locke presents in his most notable work, this was simpler and more appealing than Scholasticism. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 6]] While writing ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' , Locke traveled to France, where met Descartes, and was impressed by his anti-Scholasticism philosophy, Cartesian rationalism. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 5]] The empiricism Locke presents in ''Essay'', is considered to be a response to the two dominant schools of thought at that time: Aristotelian-influenced Scholasticism—which had been dominant since the Medieval era—and both Scholasticism and Cartesian rationalism, which was challenging especially as a rejection of the former. Locke wanted to find a middle groundlatter.|Major Contributions==== Locke On Innate Principles 's Empiricism ===Locke begins his ''Essay'' by setting up reasons, as well as responses, to why he believes there are no innate notions or principles of the speculative (descriptive) or practical (moral, prescriptive) kinds. Locke treats innateness—the theory that there are innate notions—as a sort of hypothesis and proceeds to provide arguments against it (SEP, Locke). He first rejects the argument from universal consent:

“Nothing ==== Locke on Innate Principles ==== Locke begins ''Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' by setting up reasons, as well as responses, to why he believes there are no innate notions or principles of the speculative (descriptive) or practical (moral, prescriptive) kinds. Locke treats innateness—the theory that there are innate notions—as a hypothesis and proceeds to provide arguments against it. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 15]] He first rejects the argument from universal consent: "Nothing is more commonly taken for granted than that certain principles … are accepted by all mankind. Some people have argued that because these principles are … universally accepted, they must have been stamped into the souls of men from the outset.” " [[CiteRef::Bennett (Essay 12012)|p.2.2)3]]

Locke states that speculative principles cannot be innate simply because “children ‘children and idiots” idiots’ are not aware of them. He considers it a contradiction that there would be certain truths imprinted in a person that said person could not understand—he understand. He regards ‘imprinting’ as ‘perception.’ (Essay 1.2.5) He entertains a response that says that innate propositions could be capable of being perceived under certain circumstances, and until those circumstances occuroccurred, the propositions would remain unperceived. However, Locke responds that this account fails to distinguish between innate propositions and any other propositions that a person may come to know . [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 16]] Locke also considers the account that people "know and assent to these truths when they come to the use of reason," [[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)|p. 5]] and that this is sufficient to prove those truths innate. He considers two version of the phrase, “use of reason” and argues how both are incorrect. Firstly, he takes it to mean that people use reason to discover innate propositions. He argues against by showing how this definition fails to distinguish between mathematical theorems and axioms, where axioms are supposed to be innate, and theorems not. However, if both axioms and theorems are to be discovered by reason, then there is no way to separate the two. Second, he takes “use of reason” to mean that people come to understand innate propositions once they are able to use reason, without using reason to understand those innate propositions. Locke says this, too, is incorrect, as “we observe ever so many instances of the use of reason in children long before they have any knowledge of [innate propositions].” [[CiteRef::Bennett (SEP2012)|p. 5]] In addition, even if this interpretation of “use of reason,” were true, Locke says it still would not entail that said propositions were innate. Regarding practical (moral, prescriptive) innate propositions, there are additional arguments Locke makes against innateness. First, practical propositions are not self-evident like speculative propositions—one could question why practical propositions could hold, and receive a response. This, says Locke makes them even less likely to be innate. Moreover, because practical propositions can be broken by someone, somewhere—and because obedience to them can be worn down by exposure to customs and education—they cannot be innate. Lockestates that innate principles prevent inquiry and exempted lazy people from the efforts of further research. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 18]] ==== Locke on Sensation and Reflection ==== In Book Two of ''Essay'', Locke discusses how it is that people come to have knowledge, and from whence their ideas originate. He holds that the mind is a blank sheet of paper, and it comes to be written on through experience, and people’s understandings derive from their observations.[[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)|p. 18]] Experience, according to Locke, comes from sensation and reflection. '''Sensation''' is when a person’s senses are applied to specific perceptible objects, where the senses convey an object’s qualities into the mind. [[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)|p. 18]] '''Reflection''' occurs when a person is able to perceive the operations of their own mind from within their own mind, in a way that produces ideas which could not come from external objects. Reflection is when the mind is aware of what it is doing. [[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)|p. 18]] While Locke holds that the mind is a blank slate regarding content, he believes that people are born with faculties with which to manipulate said content. Through sensation and reflection, the mind can, first, organize simple ideas into complex ideas—the independent existences of substances and the dependent existences of modes. The mind can also combine simple and complex ideas and regard them together without uniting the two—what Locke calls relations. Furthermore, the mind can produce general ideas by extracting particulars in order to limit the application of that idea. Sensation and reflection can also give rise to other ideas like: numbers, space, time, power and moral relations. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. 19]] ==== Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities ==== Also in Book Two, Locke also distinguishes between two kinds of qualities that objects or substances can have. “Whatever the mind perceives in itself—whatever the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding—I call an idea; and the power to produce an idea in our mind I call a quality if the thing that has that power.” [[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)|p. 28]] The first kind of qualities an object may have are primary qualities. These are qualities that are impossible to separate from the object, no matter how finely one divides it. Locke gathers that these '''primary qualities''' are how people can observe the simple ideas such as occupying space (extension), having shape, being in motion or at rest, and having texture. The second types of qualities an object may have are called '''secondary qualities'''; these, according to Locke, are objects’ abilities to produce in people sensations that occur through people’s interactions with the objects’ primary qualities. These sensations consist of: color, sound, taste and smell.

Locke also considers the account that people “know and assent to these truths when they come to the use discerns a third kind of reasonquality: tertiary qualities,” (Essay 1.2.6) and that this which is sufficient defined as object or substance’s power to prove those truths innateaffect another object, like fire melting wax. [[CiteRef::Bennett (2012)]] He considers two version of maintains that objects produce ideas in the phrase, “use minds of reason” and argues how both are incorrect. Firstly, he takes it to mean that people use reason to discover innate propositions. He argues against by showing how this definition fails to distinguish between mathematical theorems and axiomsthrough physical impact upon them, where axioms are supposed through small particles—corpuscles—that travel from the object to be innate, and theorems notthe mind of the person. However, if both axioms and theorems are to be discovered by reason, then there is no way to separate the two [[CiteRef::Bennett (Essay 1.22012)|p.10)29]]

Second, he takes “use of reason” to mean that people come to understand innate propositions once they are able to use reason, without using reason to understand those innate propositions. === Locke says this, too, is incorrect, as “we observe ever so many instances of the use of reason in children long before they have any knowledge of “innate propositions” (Essay 1.2.12). In addition, even if this interpretation of “use of reason,” were true, Locke says it still would not entail that said propositions were innate.'s Scientific Knowledge ===

Regarding practical (moral, prescriptive) innate propositions, there are additional arguments The Aristotelian conception of scientific knowledge prevailed prior to Locke’s work stated that scientific knowledge concerned certain knowledge of necessary truths. Locke makes against innateness. First, practical propositions are not self-evident like speculative propositions—one could question why practical propositions could holdupon realization that this demand of scientific knowledge was too strict for the experimental science of his time, and receive developed a response new conception that was more appropriate, while retaining the Aristotelian scientific knowledge as an ideal.[[CiteRef::Kochiras (Essay 1.32014)|p.4). This]] According to Locke, says Lockethere are two kinds of scientific knowledge, makes them even less likely to be innateand they differ in their degree of certainty. MoreoverIntuition is knowledge understood instantly, because practical propositions can be broken by someone, somewhere (Essay 1and demonstration is knowledge understood after a set of intermediate steps.3Both intuition and demonstration are forms of certain knowledge.13)—and because obedience to them can be worn down by exposure to customs and education [[CiteRef::Kochiras (Essay 1.3.202014)—they cannot be innate|p.8]]

Locke’s conception of scientific knowledge concerned certain kinds of objects: real essences and the connections that flowed between them. Locke states that innate principles prevent inquiry drew a distinction between real and nominal essences. While '''nominal essences''' consisted in the observable qualities used to describe and exempted lazy organize a thing, the '''real essence''' is what makes the thing what it is.[[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)|p. 9]] To Locke, people from have scientific knowledge of a thing if they know both its real essence and the necessary connections between the efforts of further research real essence and other qualities.[[CiteRef::Kochiras (Essay 12014)|p.410]] This also holds for scientific knowledge in natural philosophy. However, says Locke, accessing either is impossible for people, due to the fact that real essences escape them.24)

=== Later, Locke On Experience ===In Book Two of ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding''saw that this conception, too, was strict, Locke discusses how it is so he relaxed his condition that people come to have knowledgemust be absolutely certain, and from whence their ideas originateheld that although genuine knowledge was absolutely certain, lack of certainty did not entail ignorance. He holds that the mind When knowing truth via intuition or demonstration is a blank sheet of papernot possible, and people can still judge it comes to be written on through experience, and people’s understandings derive from their observations true or false.[[CiteRef::Osler (Essay 21970)|p.1.2)15]]

Experience, according to === Locke, comes from sensation and reflection. Sensation is when a person’s senses are applied to specific perceptible objects, where the senses convey an object’s qualities into the mind. (Essay 2.1.3) Reflection occurs when a person is able to perceive the operations of their own mind from within their own mind, in a way that produces ideas which could not come from external objects. Reflection is when the mind is aware of what it is doing. (Essay 2.1.4)'s Influence ===

While Locke holds that Locke’s ''Essay'' posited an argument for rejecting the mind is a blank slate regarding contentolder, he believes that people are born with faculties with which to manipulate said content. Through sensation scholastic model of knowledge and reflection, the mind can, firstscience in favor of his empirical one, organize simple ideas into complex ideas—the independent existences of substances and the dependent existences of modesit was very successful. The mind can also combine simple and complex ideas and regard them together without uniting the two—what Locke calls relations[[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2012)|p. Furthermore77]] Although Locke’s ''Essay'' contained much of Cartesian thought, the mind can produce general ideas by extracting particulars in order to limit the application Locke’s work was seen as refutation of Descartes, and moved philosophy toward that idea. Sensation and reflection can also give rise to other ideas like[[CiteRef:: numbers, space, time, power and moral relations Chapelle (SEP, Locke1994)|p.261]]

=== Locke On Primary and Secondary Qualities ===Also in Book Two, Locke also distinguishes between two kinds Locke’s arguments against innate ideas was part of his support of qualities that objects or substances can have. “Whatever the mind perceives in itself—whatever the immediate object importance of perception, thought, or understanding—I call an idea; “free and the power autonomous inquiry”. Locke’s ultimate goal was to produce an idea in our mind I call a quality if the thing show his readers that has that power.” (Essay 2.8.8). they could be

The first kind of qualities an object may have are primary qualities. These are qualities that are impossible to separate "free from the objectburden of tradition and authority, both in theology and knowledge, no matter how finely one divides it. Locke gathers by showing that these primary qualities are how people the entire grounds of our right conduct in the world can observe be secured by the experience [they] may gain by the simple ideas such as occupying space (extension), having shape, being in motion or at rest, innate faculties and having texture (Essay 2.8.9). The second types of qualities an object may have powers [they] are called secondary qualities. These, according to Locke, are objects’ abilities to produce in people sensations that occur through people’s interactions born with the objects’ primary qualities. These sensations consist of"[[CiteRef:: color, sound, taste and smell Chapelle (Essay 2.8.101994)|p.252]]

Locke Locke’s ''Essay'' was also discerns a third kind considered the start of quality: tertiary qualitiesBritish empiricism, which is defined became the preferred mode of philosophy among future Anglophone thinkers such as object or substance’s power to affect another objectBerkeley, like fire melting wax. He maintains that objects produce ideas in the minds of people through physical impact upon themHume, through small particles that travel from the object to the mind of the personMill, a view that was common at the time Russell and Ayer.[[CiteRef::Chapelle (Essay 2.8.121994)|p.261]]|Criticism=Locke’s ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' was heavily criticized. Gottfried Leibniz responded, point-by-point, to Locke’s work in his rebuttal, ''New Essays on Human Understanding'', where he disagreed with Locke’s rejection of innate ideas. Leibniz writes that there is no way all our ideas could come from experience since there are no real causal interactions between substances. In addition, Locke’s claim that the mind was a blank paper at birth violated Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles .[[CiteRef::Cook (SEP, Leibniz2013). ]] Fellow empiricist George Berkeley was also critical of Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities—Berkeley claimed that primary qualities as well as secondary qualities were a product of the human mind, and not a part of the object.[[CiteRef::Turbayne (1957)]]