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?"

Please note that in the Sidebar Menu describing the chronology of Locke's published works, it has the Two Treatises of Government listed as 1689. This is, however, incorrect. Recent scholarship has uncovered evidence to suggest that the Treatises were composed roughly ten years prior to 1689. As Peter Laslett of Trinity College Cambridge writes, "there is striking evidence that Locke's attack on the divine right of kings was a call for what became the Glorious Revolution rather than a plea in its defense."

See: Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government Ed. Laslett, Peter (Cambridge: University Press, 1964). More recent editions include printings by Hackett Publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.72.140 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The timeline is organized by publication date, not by when Locke was working on it. The point made by Laslett and Ashcraft is noted in the main body of the text. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

It is important to note that Locke also influenced author Laurence Sterne, most notably An Essay Concerning Human Understanding on Sterne's novel Tristram Shandy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad900159 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See: Arthur H. Cash "The Lockean Psychology of Tristram Shandy" ELH 34 (9) 1964, pp. 395-417. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad900159 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 October 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 [[[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)

Also, John Locke, from the hit TV show series Lost, is named after this John Locke.

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)

Can I please say that, "It seems to me that it matters only whether it's true or not..." is a sentence that I do not get the pleasure of seeing often enough. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.169.180 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please change it to say in the first paragraph that he is the father of CLASSICAL liberalism, and not liberalism. Many people who look at this sentence will think that Locke is a Liberal(Democrat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.238.185 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "liberal" is used in several senses, many of them contradictory. One of its definitions is "wanting or allowing a lot of political and economic freedom and supporting gradual social, political or religious change" [2]. In that sense, he is the father of liberalism. The term "classical liberal", while more specific, is not very widely used outside of classical liberal contexts. Using the word "liberal" to denote a member of the Liberal Democrats is a relatively UK-specific phenomenon, I doubt many readers will interpret the lead as saying he is the father of their party. Gabbe (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2011 (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)

RJC is right. Associating Locke with the Whigs is beyond question in academic circles.Uberzensch (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (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)

Hi, another user here. I think it also deserves a mention that LOST named a character after him (John Locke (lost))

User:marcut (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC -5)

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. Virtues have a limit." (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)

Off topic gender reference

The final sentence of the following section appears to be completely irrelevant to the whole of the paragraph prior to it:

But Locke's influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology. Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel argue that Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the beginning of the modern conception of the self.[5] Locke however believed that by nature men are superior to women.[6]

I am aware that it is somewhat symptomatic of American academia to consider their current hot topics the sole thema mundi and interpret the whole of human history through such optic (ergo obligatory quotations on racial equality or lack thereof in numerous entries about great philosophers, no matter how irrelevant to their actual doctrines), but this gender injection appears to be, given the entirely general tone of the sentences preceding it, strikingly out of place.

Can we please try to exercise some restraint with these libations to political correctness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.1.157 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely. How and where would you prefer to say it? I have no objections if the sentence is removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exile in Holland

The section on Locke's life in Holland (1683-1689) could and should be amplified. Jim Powell published a good article[3] on Locke in The Freeman in 1996, reading in part:

As Charles II intensified his campaign against rebels, Shaftesbury fled to Holland in November 1682 and died there two months later. On July 21, 1683, Locke might well have seen the powers that be at Oxford University burn books they considered dangerous. It was England’s last book burning. When Locke feared his rooms would be searched, he initially hid his draft of the two treatises with Tyrrell. Locke moved out of Oxford, checked on country property he had inherited from his father, then fled to Rotterdam September 7.

The English government tried to have Locke extradited for trial and presumably execution. He moved into one Egbertus Veen’s Amsterdam house and assumed the name "Dr. van der Linden." He signed letters as "Lamy" or "Dr. Lynne." Anticipating that the government might intercept mail, Locke protected friends by referring to them with numbers or false names. He told people he was in Holland because he enjoyed the local beer.

Information of this sort would contribute much to the understanding of Locke's situation and circumstances while drafting his philosophical and political works, especially Two Treatises. I recommend Powell's article, and wonder why this Wikipedia element is locked. There's more to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.192.154 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Epitaph

Has anyone got an authoritative transcription of his epitaph? I looked (through google books) at some and found them different. The one we have here is grammatically (in my opinion) incorrect. To my knowledge there is no Latin word "squaeras". It should be quaeras (ie. seek). There are also in other places some slight variations. (eg. eo usque pro eousque). → Aethralis 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could only find http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/32523-small.jpg which is only a part of his incription. On Google Image I used the strings "john locke" "inscription"; "john locke" "latin"; "john locke" "latin" "memorial" & "john locke" "tomb". I didn't look through all the results of course, but perhaps you'll have better luck this way. BillMasen (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this one [4] but it's too faint to read all the text. Still I made some corrections into the text in the article but left the "verification needed" tag intact. → Aethralis 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Political theory

In doing research on another topic, Theory of Knowledge, I came across the following line in this article: In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions", basis for the phrase in America; "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".[11]

I must beg to differ with the "basis" for the phrase in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as the correct language is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Despite what appears to be Wikipedia's consistent attempts to edit out any reference to God or our Creator, selectively plucking the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" phrase and attributing it to a 'natural right' rather than an "unalienable right" endowed to men by their Creator, to this reader is a misappropriation of Locke's secular humanist philosophy to a clearly deist origin. ObserverNY (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't understand. I don't know what the faith-machines are calling "secular humanism" these days. John Locke was, in point of fact, a vocal and devout Christian. BillMasen (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you both. Locke was a major influence on Jefferson and the Declaration contains Lockean themes. Whatever the ultimate source of our inalienable rights, there is still the question of how we know them to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Locke taught us what our rights were. As to Locke's devout Christianity, well, I have seen books with good presses insisting upon that very point, but I have found them all to beg the question. Apparently atheism didn't exist until David Hume, because for all time periods prior to the point when atheists were bold enough to openly declare themselves the mouthing of certain doctrines seems sufficient to convince historians that a person was a devout Christian. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Locke was sufficiently opposed to atheism that he believed it should be illegal. I doubt he would have said that if he were a closet atheist. BillMasen (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hobbes, too, declared that atheism should be illegal. Waldron shows pretty convincingly that Locke does not believe the arguments he evinces for why atheism should be illegal. Then the question becomes why Locke would have included arguments that he did not believe in. At the very least, it suggests that he might also have included a conclusion that he did not believe in. After all, his stating of any other conclusion would not change policy, while the most famous advocate of religious liberty before Locke (Spinoza) was roundly acknowledged to be an atheist (whatever his modern rehabilitators say about his true beliefs). There are reasons for Locke to avoid associating his arguments with atheism, whatever his beliefs, and it is undeniable that he did not believe the reasons he provides for why atheists can be treated like Catholics. If this is not a conclusive proof, fine. The argument that Locke's delating atheism shows he couldn't have been an atheist, however, is based on there being no reasonable way that Locke's statements on atheism are compatible with atheism, which is false or question begging and does not explain why Locke did not opt for arguments compatible with his thought in coming to that conclusion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious; who is Waldron and what did he say? BillMasen (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Waldron wrote a book called God, Locke, and Christianity where he argues (somewhat unconvincingly) that the basis of Locke's thought is a belief in equality and that this belief can be supported only by religious belief. Along the way, however, he has to address several types of people who seem to be treated as "inferiors," including atheists. Waldron points to the Essay Concerning Human Understanding (I.3.5), where Locke claims that a Hobbist says that promises are to be kept because the Leviathan punishes those who break them, just as a Christian says that they bind because God punishes those who break them. So, Locke's assertion that atheists have no reason to keep their promises is problematic, to say the least; if he is actually opposed to the toleration of atheists, it can't be because they can't keep their promises. The issue is also dealt with in Corbett, The Lockean Commonwealth. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Barriers to improving this article

There are two major barriers to improving this article. First, this article needs to be unlocked. Sure, it's funny that it's locked, but that's not a good reason for keeping it so; unlocking it would allow for more users to more easily improve it--and as I see it, this article really needs improving. That leads me to the second major barrier to improving the article: poor overall organization. To illustrate, first consider the article jjgti 94hhhtieifgeifgtietiet43utij349jtiyeiyiyhrt8888utgugu-ug-uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugsduwge7737728`12ugewaqugajgdqswdjapduacpsfjgsgfs

sjfjmnfnnnfhmnkjfdhas to say about Locke's influence on political philosophy:

The article starts off deceptively well. Its neatly-written intro paragraph both mentions social contract theory and also markedly observes that Locke "influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence."[2] It sounds like the start of a great article.

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is a jumbled mess on three accounts.

First, the "influence" section says shockingly little about Locke's role both in founding social contract theory and modern liberalism.

Second, the discussion of Locke's influence on notable thinkers, such as those identified in the introduction, is incomplete. In fact, the rest of the article never even mentions Rousseau nor does it identify those "Scottish Enlightenment thinkers." It says nothing about the French Revolution, and the only thing it says about Voltaire is that he once called Locke "le sage Locke."

Finally, what the article does describe is not sufficiently detailed. For example, it oversimplifies Locke's influence on American revolutionaries. While Thomas Jefferson was indeed a fan of Locke, Locke's influence should not be overstated, as James Madison and others were more directly influenced by classical republicans, and, indeed, there were even some loyalists who deployed Locke's ideas when arguing against revolution (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/loyalists.html).

As the above example shows, the content and organization of this article have some room for improvement. More importantly, without significant reorganization, improving the content of this article will be difficult or impossible. Currently, all the non-biographical, non-list content is unhelpfully lumped together in the "influence" section with a strange assortment of differently-sized, not-entirely-useful headings. This poor organization is serving as a barrier to improvement as it makes it harder to recognize irrelevant and incomplete content. The conclusion is that there needs to be a discussion of how to better organize this article. At the very least, it would help make clear what components are still incomplete --and thereby, make it easier to complete them.

In that spirit, I submit the following:

First, the article should have a section for describing, in abstract, major themes and ideas in Locke's writing. These might include: social contract, tabula rosa, roles of government, property, paternal power, currency, slavery, &cetera. A standard of notability (3+ published sources refer to them) for these themes might be justified.

Second, the "influence" section should focus less on describing Locke's ideas per se, and more on describing their impact. These are, after all, two separate subjects. Content which merely describes Locke's philosophic ideas should be cut out of the "influence" section and placed elsewhere, probably in the "themes" section.

128.101.88.8 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)max.plato

The article is quite bad. By way of contrast, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is quite good. The wikipedia article will never get better if it stays locked. Beamish Son (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Beamish Son

Tabula rasa?

Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian or Christian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.

This section from the opening paragraph is clearly wrong and misleading. The tabula rasa idea was aristotelian (and thus also medieval christian) and so can be in no way attributed first to Locke. He may be most well known proponent of it, but not the first. → Aethralis 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Locke is most strongly associated with tabula rasa, more so than Aristotle or any medieval christian thinker. The dominant thinking at the time upheld innate ideas, both because the christian Bible says that certain principles are written on the hearts of men and because God's punishment of His law seems cruel if He did not adequately promulgate that law beforehand. Locke challenged this. Tabula rasa was then adopted into a nature vs. nurture debate to deny the importance of some stable human "nature," for everything would be the result of "nurture" (and so man would be infinitely malleable). Locke might not have intended for his statements that the mind is like a white sheet of paper to go this far, but it does not sit well with Aristotle (who is closer to those contemporary researchers who note that the distinction doesn't hold up under analysis). So, I don't find that opening to be either wrong or misleading. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have been reading the (aristotelian) disputations of the first half of 17th century and quite many of them bring out the idea "there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses". Before Descartes this was considered common knowledge. So the sentence should rather be "Contrary to Cartesian philosophy..." but in no way it is possible to say "Contrary to pre-existing Christian philosophy...". Neoplatonism was not the only current of Christian philosophy. → Aethralis 09:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tabula rasa means no synderesis, no conscience; it stands against "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom. 12:14-15). It is a repudiation of Thomism, not just Neoplatonism. If you can find a reliable source that claims that tabula rasa was in vogue prior to Locke, the article can note that his originality is disputed by a minority of scholars. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have access to JSTOR. This article Wood, Neal (1992). "Tabula Rasa, Social Environmentalism, and the "English Paradigm"". Journal of the History of Ideas. 53 (4): 647–668. ISSN 0022-5037. Retrieved 2009-11-26. describes some of the background of Lockes understanding of tabula rasa (esp. p. 651ff). It must be also mentioned, that this is by no means a minority view or questioning his originality. Innate ideas and "inclinations" (the word Locke himself uses) are quite different. See Spellman, W. M. (1987). "The Christian Estimate of Man in Locke's "Essay"". The Journal of Religion. 67 (4): 474–492. ISSN 0022-4189. Retrieved 2009-11-26., esp. p. 478. Regarding synedresis it would be useful to investigate further, as Locke speaks about "the Candle of the Lord set up by himself in Men's minds". This follows the vocabulary of synderesis very closely. → Aethralis 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He also speaks of the law of nature being written in the hearts of men, but at the same time says there are no innate practical principles, that the laws of nature are nowhere inscribed on the hearts of men, and reinterprets Romans so that it no longer provides support for its being written on the hearts of men. The reflections that led to the Essay were prompted by a discussion of how man knows the law of nature: their main purpose seems to be to establish that man can have knowledge even though there is no synderesis. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Change of name request.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Royal Africa Company should be changed to Royal Africa Company

Under the Influence section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAaaMan64 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 February 2010

 Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Srettiws, 11 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The current entry which links Locke to the political theory of the social contract and later ideals of Rouseau could be better distinguished. Locke was an empiricist not a romantic. Bertrand Russell's point of view [History of Western Philosophy] is important in regard to this, particularly in noting Lockes direct influence of the Declaration of Independence which did not evolve from romantic sentiments. I feel the article would benefit from Russell's perspective and I'd be happy to submit an insert.

Srettiws (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to submit your exact change/addition here, and someone can add it to the article.  fetchcomms☛ 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.195.120.196, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I think the 17 May 2010 edit of User:Crashandspin should be reverted. The edit comment says "(ammended to british english for british subject)". This user should learn to spell "amended" before attempting spelling revisions. There is no policy to change spelling to British variant for British subjects, and his changes resulted in a at least one needless redirect: labour theory of value now redirects to labor theory of value.

Please revert this silly nationalistic edit.

Thank you.

Resolved

 – Argh, it puts a stink in my gourd to say this, but Crashandspin is right. MOS:TIES says, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me, RJC. I apologize to Crashandspin now that I hear it is standard practice, even though I am not enthusiastic about the practice. A little care could avoid introducing the needless redirects though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.120.196 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 205.186.33.2, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

205.186.33.2 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC) who is they? "intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel" What are their credentials?

Please detail the exact change you wish to make. —fetch·comms 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't specify what you wanted changed, but Charles Taylor (philosopher) and Jerrold Seigel are professors of philosophy and history, respectively. Favonian (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Locke and Slavery

I think someone should mention in the biography section, that Locke took actively part in the slave trade, both as an investor and in his function as the secretary to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, as the Secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations and as the Commissioner of the Board of Trade. Evidence can be found e.g. in "Three Approaches to Locke and the Slave Trade" by Wayne Glausser, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.161.247 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 201.159.193.138, 31 July 2010

The current statement "Considered the first of the British empiricists..." in the second sentence of the introduction is probably not correct. Sir Francis Bacon is generally so acknowledged -- and died in the process of empirical research. If Bacon is father of the modern Scientific Method (and he is), he is surely the father of British Empiricism.

It would be correct to say that Locke is "Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon."201.159.193.138 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Drpatlines, 2 October 2010

To add Locke to the list of English philosphers (the article itself supports this), please add the following: Category:English philosophers

I might note that Whitehead called Locke "England's Aristotle" and Whitehead is that list. So is Hobbes. It's quite strange that Locke is missing.

Drpatlines (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

N Not done He's under English political philosophers, so perhaps that should be made a sub-category of English philosophers instead of multiple categories. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Along with the previous entry, could we get a citation for Locke's disinterest in classical philosophy? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.169.180 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Expand request on Theory of value and property

The article has an expansion request on the Theory of value and property section. Is this still needed? If so what expansion is required.— Rod ^talk 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am under the impression that Locke did not define property as we do today. It is not an owned tangible object, but, the value added to an object by labor. It is the value added or the pursuit of happiness (money). If you take some berry's from a bush, the berry's are the property of God (its creator), and there-in owned in common. If you smash the berries into jam it is now your property... minus repayment to the commons that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torakism (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph allegedly describing Locke's view on self-interest is entirely fallacious and is an obvious attempt to change history to meet the author's views! The author should cite the basis for his views. There are in fact none.

24.209.107.230 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Under the section concerning Locke's theory on property including the fact that Karl Marx critiqued his view violates NPOV. Many philosophers have different views on property and Marx is simply not relevant in this case. The Founding Fathers, implementing Locke's theory into the American Republic would be more relevant, but I see a violation of NPOV by mentioning Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blustreeak (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx is the pre-eminent proponent of the labour theory of value. John Locke was an earlier proponent of a similar view. The distinction between their two views is the main topic of one of the sources of the article (namely G. A. Cohen's 1995 essay "Marx and Locke on Land and Labour"). As noted by the {{Expand section}}-template, this article's coverage of Locke's theory of value (and its connection with Marx's later theory) should be expanded, not deleted. Gabbe (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever else might be said about Marx's merits as a thinker, he was rather influential. He took issue with Locke. For half a century, a state that claimed to take inspiration from Marx pitted itself against a state that claimed to take inspiration from Locke. For decades, political theory was dominated by the heirs of Marx battling the heirs of Locke. Mentioning Marx here is not quite the same as noting some blogger who thinks Green Day sucks after recounting Green Day's awards. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

The following quote is regularly attributed to Locke. Can anyone authenticate it please?:
The discipline of desire is the background of character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Possessions" vs. "Pursuit of Happiness"

The article states that Locke's "Life, Liberty and Possessions" was the inspiration for the America Declaration of Indendence's "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." There is no source offered for this claim and I think it is most certainly false. Nash Motors (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the citation. Locke's definition of property as life, liberty, and estate is usually taken to be the source of the Declaration's phrase rather than than the list he gives earlier in the Two Treatises, so that may have cause some conclusion. But Locke's influence on Jefferson is well-attested. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reputable source for the statement, please add it to the article. If you don't have a source, please remove the statement. I am always puzzled by the apparently wide-spread belief that the people who fought the American Revolution drew their philosophical inspiration from the very people they were fighting. Nash Motors (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I had already added the source before I replied. As to your puzzlement, the colonists at first said that they were simply insisting upon their rights as Englishmen as they were understood in England. A lot of their philosophic inspiration had been written a century earlier to justify Parliament's struggles with the Crown, and they thought that they were carrying on those Whig principles. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As this article already observes, when Locke co-authored the constitution of Carolina, he established a feudal aristocracy. If you take a look at the Wikipedia article Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you will see that there is some debate on the origin of the slogan. I suggest that you modify your claim to say that "some credit the phrase to Locke." Nash Motors (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can add a footnoted aside on Wills' view. Incidentally, Locke was not one of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina. He was secretary to Lord Shaftesbury, and even Shaftesbury wasn't alone in shaping the document. Locke wrote the Fundamental Constitutions the same way that a lawyer writes a contract. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better now. Nash Motors (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2012

Where this article says 'the English Royal Society' it would be more correct to write 'the Royal Society of London'. See <http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/>

Ajbird (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the word "English". The full name was (and perhaps still is) The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge. Since our article on the society is entitled simply Royal Society and that's how they mostly bill themselves on their web site, I think that should work for our purposes here. Rivertorch (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No tabula rasa in Locke's Essay

I can find no reference to "tabula rasa" in Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding". He does says that there are "no innate ideas". While I would agree that "no innate ideas" entails a tabula rasa, Locke did not actually say this. Indeed, Locke was one of the first people to write about epistemology in plain English, thus avoiding the Latin verbiage of scholasticism.

If anybody can find a reference to tabula rasa in the essay, please let me know. Otherwise this entry will need a considerable re-write. It is absurd to say, without qualification, that the tabula rasa is one of Locke's main ideas when he never used the term.--Logicalgregory 06:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas" (ECHU II.1.2). Locke doesn't use the phrase tabula rasa, but his statement about the white paper is taken to be identical, especially since his denial of innate ideas amounts to asserting that the mind is a tabula rasa. In any case, I do not know of a single scholar who does not associate Locke with tabula rasa just because he used different words. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps it would be a good idea to say "that although Locke did not use the term 'tabula rasa' he is considered to be a major contributor to the tabula rasa theory by 'so and so' and 'so and so'. Given that RJC knows of many scholars who associate Locke with it, perhaps RJC would be a good enough to provide at least one citation. Otherwise it looks like the tabula rasa theory has been attributed to Locke by wikipedia editors only.--Logicalgregory 06:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't cite any great philosophers, but certainly common usage attributes the notion of tabula rasa to Locke, among others.

Encyclopedia Britannica. Though Locke himself fell back on “reflection” as a power of the mind for the exploitation of the given “materials,” his championship of the tabula rasa signaled even more radical positions by later philosophers.

Bill Uzgalis (just some professor in Oregon). Locke holds that the mind is a tabula rasa.

Don't laugh--Jostien Gaarder. Locke's claim is that. . . the mind is a "tabula rasa. . . (Maybe I omitted too much there.)

Until RJC cites his scholars, this will do to show the notion isn't a figment of the imaginations of WP editors. Yopienso (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is normal for wikipedia to cite other encyclopedias be it Britannica or the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy (which is where the Bill Uzgalis ref leads us). So we are left with "Sophie's World" as the authority. I was expecting a reference to a paper in an academic journal.--Logicalgregory 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I direct User:Logicalgregory to WP:CIR. Unless other editors have a reason to doubt Locke's relation to tabula rasa, I will leave things at that. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 08:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If, by the direction to WP:CIR, RJC is suggesting that I am incompetent to make remarks about the Locke entry, then I find this presumptuous and highly offensive.--Logicalgregory 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Logicalgregory, I have no idea what prompted that WP:CIR comment by RJC. Let's just ignore it as inappropriate or the result of momentary confusion on her/his part.

Wrt the three works I cite, no, I would not use any of them in the article but only threw them out here to demonstrate it's not just WP editors who believe Locke "preached" the tabula rasa doctrine. There are endless works that attribute the notion of tabula rasa to Locke. 1. 2. 3. In Some Thoughts Concerning Education, Locke wrote, "But having had here only some general views in reference to the main end and aims in education, and those designed for a gentleman's son, whom, being then very little, I considered only as white paper, or wax, to be moulded and fashioned as one pleases," the white paper being for all practical purposes a blank (blanc) tablet. But now I think you weren't questioning Locke's association with tabula rasa, but pointing out somewhat sloppy writing (or being really picky).

Hi, RJC, we're waiting for cites to legitimate scholars. I lean toward incorporating Lg's suggestion of rephrasing the text, as per, for one, this paper. Yopienso (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The references to the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plus the reference to Russell 1994 that is already in the article, should suffice for WP:V. LogicalGregory is just wrong about what WP:RS and WP:NOR say concerning tertiary sources. If you want more secondary sources, take your pick from a Google Scholar search for Locke tabula rasa, or the articles just cited by Yopienso. That Locke argued that the mind is a tabula rasa is so uncontroversial that you will not find a scholar devoting a full article to the thesis that it is true, just as you won't find an article defending the view that Locke was a social contract theorist even though he preferred to speak of a "compact." LG's proposed revision isn't just to say that Locke's "white paper" remark is identical with tabula rasa, but to qualify the association by saying that certain scholars think that it is identical. We make such qualifications only to avoid an WP:NPOV problem. But there is no contested position taken here such that we have to be neutral regarding how we present things. Duschinsky's paper is unpublished and indeed presumes that the consensus view is that Locke was a tabula rasa theorist. Is there a reason we need additional secondary sources beyond those that are already in the article to buttress an uncontroversial thesis? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Yopienso, Thank you for your kind remarks. I'm not just being picky but a full explanation of my ideas on this would take a lot of time so I'll have to get back to you later.--Logicalgregory 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

Slurpy121 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)I would like to add some extra details in this article to improve the information provided.

Please see my reply to your second request (below). Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012

Slurpy121 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Slurpy121Slurpy121 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Unfortunately, the article has suffered from persistent vandalism, so it is semi-protected. You can either request specific changes now or wait until your account is autoconfirmed and make the changes yourself. If there's a simple, uncontroversial change you'd like to propose, I'll be happy to consider it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)