Changes

|Brief=A British philosopher who championed empiricism, arguing that all knowledge was derived from experience.|Summary='''John Locke (1632-1704)''' was a British philosopher, writer, political activist, medical researcher, Oxford academic, and government official|Summary=Locke was a champion of '''empiricism''', arguing that all knowledge was derived from experience. Among his most notable works is ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'', which provides a defense defence of empiricism and the origins of ideas and understanding. In this work, Locke rejects the idea of innate principles, and argues that all knowledge comes from experience. Locke also wrote on religious toleration and social contract theory. He opposed authoritarianism and argued that individuals should use reason to discover the truth.|Historical Context=Locke lived in politically turbulent times for Englandwas born into an English Puritan family of modest means, but was able to obtain an excellent education by way of his father's connections. Conflicts between [[CiteRef::Dunn (2003)]] In 1647, at the King age of fifteen, he began studies at Westminster School, considered London's best. At twenty, he began studies at Christ Church College, Oxford. His studies focused on logic, metaphysics, and languages taught within the Parliament framework of '''Aristotelian scholasticism''', for which he developed an intense dislike. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)| pp. 3-4]][[CiteRef::Milton (1994)]] This was more than a century after Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) had posited his '''heliocentric cosmology''' in 1543, and between Protestantsforty years after Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) published his observations with the telescope in 1610. These developments had cast Aristotelianism into doubt. [[CiteRef::Westfall (1980)|p. 6]] Like many ambitious students of the time, AnglicansLocke sought alternative resources outside the formal curriculum, and Catholics led such resources were abundant at Oxford. He became involved with a discussion group organized by John Wilkins (1614-1672)and was exposed to civil war in the 1640's. King Charles I was defeated ''experimental philosophy''' and killedthe ideas of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who argued for an '''inductive methodology''' for science. The monarchy Wilkins group was abolished in favor the nucleus of what would later become the 'Royal Society of Oliver CromwellLondon for Improving Natural Knowledge', known simply as the '''Royal Society'''s Protectorate . The Royal Society became a formal institution in the 16501660'sand England's main society for the promotion of natural philosophy. The protectorate collapsed and society would set itself in opposition to the Aristotelian scholasticism of the universities, advocating the monarchy was restored study of nature rather than of ancient texts. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 4]] Locke's notebooks indicate a strong interest in 1660medicine and chemistry. In 1668, King James II was overthrown in He attended the Glorious Revolution in favor lectures of William of Orange the great anatomist Thomas Willis (1621-1675) and his wife Marytook careful notes. [[CiteRef::Rogers (1982)|p. 217]][[CiteRef::Anstey (2011)|p. 6]]

While studying After Locke received his bachelor's degree in 1656, he remained at Oxfordto study medicine. He worked closely with Dr. Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689), Locke was exposed Scholasticism—the Aristotelianrenown for his pioneering work in the treatment of infectious diseases. [[CiteRef::Dunn (2003)]] Robert Boyle (1627-influenced course 1691) succeeded John Wilkins as the leader of study the scientific group at Oxford, and became Locke's scientific tutor. Boyle ascribed to the time—and found '''corpuscular mechanistic philosophy''' associated with [[Rene Descartes]] (1596-1650), and was noted for his physical experiments. The corpuscular philosophy held that he did not like it the visible properties of the natural world were due to interactions between invisibly small particles or corpuscles. Locke read Boyle's and had no use for itDescartes works, as well as those of Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), who emphasized the role of the senses in knowledge. He left this course learned from his experimentalist associates and from the writings of Gassendi, to be skeptical of study Descartes' '''rationalism'''. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 4]] [[CiteRef::Dunn (2003)]][[CiteRef::Fisher (2014)]] He accepted Descartes' corpuscular view of matter, his dualistic view that mind and picked up medicine matter were separate substances, and chemistry, where he became acquainted with Robert Boyle believed the world to contain genuine causal interactions between physical objects. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis Rogers (20161982)|p. 5]] and ascribed  Locke became personal physician to his Corpuscular TheoryAnthony Ashley Cooper (1621-1683) (Lord Ashley), which stated that a leading English political figure during the natural world 1670's and 1680's. [[CiteRef::Dunn (2003)]] He was composed an early member of the Royal Society and knew most of smallthe major English natural philosophers, invisible pieces of matter called corpusclesincluding [[Isaac Newton]] (1643-1727) and some continental ones as well. To Locke, this This community was simpler concerned with arguing for the reliability of observation and more appealing than Scholasticismexperiment as a means of acquiring knowledge as opposed to Aristotelian intuition or Cartesian rationalism. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 64]] While writing Locke's most important contribution to this argument was his ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'', published in 1689. Locke and Newton became directly acquainted while Locke was finishing this work. When Locke traveled to Franceread Newton's ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'', where met Descartespublished in 1687, and was impressed by he found epistemological views similar to his anti-Scholasticism philosophyown. Both had absorbed the views current in the Royal Society. Locke's essay received its warmest reception from the members of the society, Cartesian rationalismand can be deemed an expression of their collective understanding of scientific methodology. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis Rogers (20161982)|p. 5]] The empiricism Locke presents in ''Essay'', is considered to be a response to both Scholasticism and Cartesian rationalism, especially as a rejection of the latter.

==== Locke on Innate Principles ==== In the second book, Locke begins ''Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' by setting up reasonshis positive account of how people acquire knowledge. "Let us suppose", as well as responseshe writes, "the mind to why he believes there are have no innate notions or principles of the speculative (descriptive) or practical (moralideas in it, prescriptive) kindsto be like ''white paper'' with nothing written on it. Locke treats innateness—the theory that there are innate notions—as a hypothesis and proceeds How then does it come to provide arguments against itbe written on?.. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 15]] He first rejects the argument To this I answer, in one word, from universal consent: ''experience''"Nothing is more commonly taken for granted than . Locke's belief 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 knowledge comes from the outsetsense experience is '''empiricism'''." [[CiteRef::Locke (2015a2015b)|p. 318]] identifying the defect wherein that universal agreement Unlike Descartes, Locke does not entail innateness, as well as seriously entertain the fact possibility that the argument from universal consent can be turned into evidence for a lack of innateness. Locke states that speculative principles cannot be innate simply because ‘children and idiots’ his senses are not aware of themfundamentally unreliable. He considers it a contradiction writes that there would be certain truths imprinted in a person , "We certainly find that said person could not understand. He regards ‘imprinting’ as ‘perception.’ He entertains a response that innate propositions could be capable pleasure or pain follows upon the application to us of being perceived under certain circumstances, objects whose existence we perceive (or dream we perceive!) through our senses; and until those circumstances occurredthis certainly is as great as we need for practical purposes, which are the propositions would remain unperceived. However, Locke responds that this account fails only purposes we ought to distinguish between innate propositions and any other propositions that a person may come to knowhave". [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 16]] Locke also considers the account that people "know and assent to these truths when they come to the use of reason," [[CiteRef::Locke (2015a2015d)|p. 5202]] and that this is sufficient to prove those truths innate. He considers two version of the phrase, “use of reason” and argues how both When our senses are incorrect. Firstly, he takes it applied 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 axiomsparticular perceptible objects, 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 they convey into the two. Second, he takes “use mind perceptions 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 propositionsthings. Locke says this, too, This '''sensation''' is incorrect, as “we observe ever so many instances of the use source of reason in children long before they have any knowledge most of [innate propositions]our ideas.” [[CiteRef::Locke (2015a)|p. 5]] In additionWe can also perceive the workings of our own mind within us, even if this interpretation which gives us ideas of “use of reasonthe mind's own operations such as "perception,” were truethinking, Locke says it still would not entail that said propositions were innate. Regarding practical (moral, prescriptive) innate propositionsdoubting, 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 holdbelieving, and receive a response. Thisreasoning, says Locke makes them even less likely to be innate. Moreoverknowing, because practical propositions can be broken by someonewilling, somewhere—and because obedience to them can be worn down by exposure to customs and education—they cannot be innate. Locke states that innate principles prevent inquiry and exempted lazy people from all the efforts of further research. [[CiteRef::Uzgalis (2016)|p. 18]] ==== different things our minds do", a process which Locke on Sensation and Reflection ==== In Book Two of calls '''reflection'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::Locke (2015b)|p. 18]] ExperienceSimple ideas produced by these processes can be grouped into complex ideas, according to Locke, comes from sensation such as those of substances and reflectionmodes. '''SensationSubstances''' is when a person’s senses are applied to specific perceptible objectsindependently existing things like God, angels, humans, animals, plants, where the senses convey an object’s qualities into the mindand constructed things. [[CiteRef::Locke (2015b)|p. 18]] '''ReflectionModes''' occurs when a person is able to perceive the operations of their own mind from within their own mindare dependently existing things like mathematical and moral ideas, in a way that produces ideas which could not come from external objects. Reflection is when form the mind is aware content of what it is doingreligion, politics, and culture. [[CiteRef::Note that while Locke (2015b)|p. 18]] While Locke holds does not believe that the mind is a blank slate regarding contentwe are born with ideas, he believes that people we are born with faculties with which to receive and 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 (2016)|p. 19]] ==== Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities ==== Also in Book Two, Locke also distinguishes between two kinds rejected Descartes contention that thinking was an inherent property of qualities that objects or substances can have. “Whatever the mind perceives in itself—whatever the immediate object of perception. He wrote that "To ask, at what time a Man has first any ideas, thoughtis to ask, or understanding—I call an ideawhen he begins to perceive; having ideas, and perception being the power to produce an idea in our mind I call a quality if the same thing that has that power.” [[CiteRef::Locke (2015b)|p. 28]] The first kind of qualities I know it is an object may have are primary qualities. These are qualities opinion, that are impossible to separate from the objectsoul always thinks, no matter how finely one divides and that it. Locke gathers that these '''primary qualities''' are how people can observe has the simple actual perception of ideas such as occupying space (extension), having shape, being in motion or at restitself constantly, as long as it exists; 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 discerns a third kind of quality: tertiary qualities, which actual thinking is defined as object or substance’s power to affect another object, like fire melting wax.[[CiteRef::Locke (2015b)]] He maintains that objects produce ideas in inseparable from the minds of people through physical impact upon themsoul, through small particles—corpuscles—that travel as actual extension is from the object body; which if true, to enquire after the mind beginning of the person.[[CiteRef::Locke (2015b)|p. 29]] === Lockea man's Scientific Knowledge === The Aristotelian conception of scientific knowledge prevailed prior to Locke’s work stated that scientific knowledge concerned certain knowledge of necessary truths. Lockeideas, upon realization that this demand of scientific knowledge was too strict for is the experimental science of his time, developed a new conception that was more appropriatesame, while retaining the Aristotelian scientific knowledge as an ideal.[[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)|p. 4]] According to Locke, there are two kinds of scientific knowledge, and they differ in their degree of certainty. Intuition is knowledge understood instantly, and demonstration is knowledge understood enquire after a set the beginning of intermediate steps. Both intuition and demonstration are forms of certain knowledgehis soul".[[CiteRef::Kochiras Rogers (20141982)|p. 8]]

Locke’s conception As a corpuscularist, Locke took all observable bodies to be composed of scientific knowledge concerned certain kinds of objects: real essences and the connections that flowed between theminvisibly small material particles called corpuscles. Such particles interacted primarily by direct physical contact, which could convey motion. Locke drew however, did accept Issac Newton's concept of gravitation, believing this attraction at a distinction between real and nominal essencesdistance to be a special property added to matter by God. While [[CiteRef:: Kochiras (2014)]] Material bodies had certain '''nominal essencesprimary qualities''' consisted in the observable qualities used to describe including size, shape, texture, and organize a thingmotion, the which were impossible to separate from them. They also had '''real essencesecondary qualities''' is what makes , which were the object's abilities to produce sensations of color, sound, taste, and smell in human beings when they interact with bodies or particles with the thing what it isappropriate primary qualities.[[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)|p. 9]] To Unlike Descartes, Lockeallowed that it was possible that the soul might be material. In book IV of his Essay, people have scientific knowledge he wrote that "anyone who will allow himself to think freely...will hardly find reason directing him firmly for or against the soul's materiality". He argued that the materiality of the soul was consistent with "the great ends of a thing if they know both its real essence religion and morality", since God might effect the necessary connections between material resurrection of the real essence and other qualitiesdead on Judgment Day.[[CiteRef::Kochiras Locke (20142015b)|p. 10205]] 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.

Later=== Locke on Scientific Methodology ===The Aristotelian scholastic approach to knowledge saw scientific knowledge as certain knowledge of necessary truths, with conclusions deduced from premises that were self-evident. Like many others of his times, Locke saw did not believe that this conception, too, sort of knowledge was strictgenerally possible in natural philosophy, so though he relaxed his condition continued to hold it as an ideal. He sought to replace such stringent demands with ones more compatible with the new experimental science, such as that practiced by the Royal Society. He took knowledge must to be absolutely certain"nothing but the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and held that although genuine incompatibility, of any of our ideas", with our ideas derived ultimately from sensations. [[CiteRef::Locke (2015d)|p. 196]][[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)]] Locke distinguished between two sorts of knowledge was absolutely certain, lack knowledge of certainty did not entail ignorance '''nominal essences''' which are the set of observable qualities we use to classify a thing, and knowledge of '''real essences''' which are the causal grounds of a substance's perceivable qualities. When knowing truth via intuition or demonstration is not possibleIt was this latter sort of knowledge that Locke thought was, for the most part, people can still judge it true or falsebeyond human reach.[[CiteRef::Osler (1970)|p. 15]]

=== For Locke's Influence ===, knowledge of the real essences of material substances and the necessary connections of these essences to qualities flowing from them was the deepest sort of knowledge one might, in principle, have in natural philosophy. He imagined this to be knowledge of the corpuscles that make up matter and their sizes, shapes, and arrangements. Given such fundamental knowledge, we could deduce the tertiary qualities of substances; their powers to produce certain effects in other substances. Just as a locksmith knows that a particular key opens one lock but not another, we could know that opium produces sleep, and hemlock causes death and the reasons why.[[CiteRef::Locke (2015d)|p. 212]][[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)]]

Locke’s ''Essay'' posited an argument But Locke supposed that such knowledge was, for rejecting the oldermost part, scholastic model beyond human faculties because corpuscles are too small to be discerned by human senses. He wrote that "But while we lack senses acute enough to discover the minute particles of knowledge bodies and to give us ideas of their fine structure, we must be content to be ignorant of their properties and science ways of operation, being assured only of what we can learn from a few experiments. And what we can learn for sure in favor that way is limited indeed." [[CiteRef::Locke (2015d)|p. 212]][[CiteRef::Anstey (2011)|pp. 31-45]] In making this case about the limits of our knowledge of his empirical onea corpuscular world, Locke nonetheless felt confident in relying on the corpuscular hypothesis itself "because that’s the theory that is thought to go furthest in intelligibly explaining those qualities of bodies; and I fear that the human understanding hasn’t the power to replace it was very successful..." [[CiteRef::Uzgalis Locke (20162015d)|p. 77208]] Although Locke’s ''Essay'' contained much While knowledge of Cartesian thoughtreal essences, was, for the most part, inaccessible to humans, Locke’s work Locke imagined that it was seen not inaccessible to other epistemic agents with different or more acute senses, such as refutation of DescartesGod, the angels, and moved philosophy toward thatthe inhabitants of other planets.[[CiteRef::Chappelle Kochiras (2014)]][[CiteRef::Locke (19942015d)|p. 261211]]

Locke’s arguments against innate ideas Locke supposed that human knowledge was limited to what he called '''sensitive knowledge'''; knowledge of nominal essences that comes every day within the notice of our senses. [[CiteRef::Kochiras (2014)]][[CiteRef::Osler (1970)]] Like Francis Bacon, he maintained that an important part of his support the methodology of natural philosophy is the construction of natural histories giving systematic accounts of phenomena. Hypotheses played only a minor role in natural philosophy, though he did accept the value of the importance theories expressed in Newton's ''Principia''. [[CiteRef::Anstey (2011)|p. 70]] He wrote that "We should not take up any one [hypothesis] ''too hastily'' ... till we have very well examined particulars and made several experiments in that thing we would explain by our hypothesis, and see whether it will agree to them all". [[CiteRef::Rogers (1982)|p. 231]] Like Newton, he supposed that knowledge could be obtained by observation, experiment, and inductive generalization. Locke’s ''Essay'' came to be considered the start of “free '''British empiricism''', with contributions by subsequent Anglophone thinkers including Berkeley, Hume, Mill, Russell and autonomous inquiry”Ayer. [[CiteRef::Chappell (Ed.) (1994)|p. 261]]|Criticism=In some quarters, Locke’s ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' was heavily criticized. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) responded, point-by-point, to Locke’s work in a book length rebuttal, ''New Essays on Human Understanding'', which he finished in 1704, but wasn't published until sixty years later. [[CiteRef::Look (2017)]] Leibniz rejected Locke's claim that the senses were the ultimate goal was source of all our ideas and that there were no innate ideas. He wrote that "Experience is necessary...if the soul...is to show his readers take heed of the ideas that they are within us. But how could be experience and the senses provide the ideas? Does the soul have windows? Is it similar to writing tablets or wax? Clearly, those who take this view of the soul are treating it as fundamentally corporeal", a possibility that Locke was willing to countenance, but Leibniz found abhorrent. [[CiteRef::Look (2017)|p. 40]]

"free from Leibniz rejected Locke's claim that the burden mind was initially devoid of tradition and authorityideas, like a blank sheet of paper, because this would make new minds identical, both in theology and knowledgebut separate, a possibility ruled out by showing his Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.[[CiteRef::Look (2017)]] Although he allowed that contingent truths might be learned with the entire grounds assistance of our right conduct in the world can be secured by senses, logically necessary principles, like the truths of pure mathematics, logic, and some areas of metaphysics and ethics could not come from the experience senses because no number of specific experiences could demonstrate their necessity. [[theyCiteRef::Look (2017)]] may gain by Therefore, he concluded that, "the proof of them can only come from inner principles, which are described as innate faculties and powers ". [[theyCiteRef::Leibniz (2017a)|p. 3]] are born withTo explain why everyone doesn't have access to these innate ideas, he wrote that "It would indeed be wrong to think that we can easily read these eternal laws of reason in the soul...without effort or inquiry; but it is enough that they can be discovered inside us if we give them our attention: the senses provide the prompt, and the results of experiments also serve to corroborate reason, rather as checking procedures in arithmetic help us to avoid errors of calculation in long chains of reasoning". [[CiteRef::Chappelle Leibniz (19942017a)|p. 2523]] Leibniz's criticisms of Locke touched off a prolonged debate between empiricists, who maintained, with Locke, that all knowledge derives from experience, and rationalists like Leibniz, who maintained that some knowledge is derived by means other than experience, and must therefore be innate. [[CiteRef::Markie (2015)]]

Locke’s George Berkeley (1685-1753) questioned Locke and Descartes'conception of a corpuscular mechanistic material world. Drawing on Locke'Essay'' was also considered the start of British empiricisms distinction between mind-dependent secondary qualities and mind-independent primary qualities, which became the preferred mode of philosophy among future Anglophone thinkers he questioned whether primary qualities such as Berkeleysize, Humeshape, Milltexture and motion were, Russell and Ayer.[[CiteRef::Chappelle (1994)|p. 261]]|Criticism=Locke’s ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' was heavily criticized. Gottfried Leibniz respondedindeed, pointmind-by-pointindependent. Denying the existence of material substance, Berkeley attributed intersubjective agreement about the perceived world and its apparent stability 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 action of God rather than to the Identity properties of Indiscerniblesinvisible material corpuscles.[[CiteRef::Cook Downing (2013)]] 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::Berkeley (1957)]]Berkeley's criticism of corpuscular matter had a strong influence on subsequent thinkers, including David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).|Page Status=Needs EditingEditor Approved