John Locke

Author: R.I. Aron
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-03-01
Features: Chapter Early Period (1632-1667) John Locke's works reflect the spirit of his time. In these works, we see a balanced and tolerant attitude toward life, which was a typical characteristic of late 17th-century England. The love for calm, meticulous thinking, and the cautious avoidance of extreme tendencies are faithfully reflected on every page. However, Locke was born into a vastly different world—a mad world filled with intense conflicts and narrow passions, with exaggerated and crude ways of expressing opinions, where emotions and sentiments were allowed to run wild, and reason was forgotten. At least, that was how Locke's generation saw it. Late 17th-century England abhorred the enthusiasmism of the Civil War period. In poetry and literature, expressing emotions to some extent was tolerable, even welcome, merely "for amusement," but in serious matters like life, religion, and politics, especially when studying the truths of philosophy and science, appealing to emotions was not permissible. Life demanded reverence for reason. Locke, in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, interrupted his calm and serious train of thought several times, one of which was when he unusually fiercely attacked the "enthusiasm" of the preceding period, which was highly meaningful. To call someone an "enthusiast" was to condemn them contemptuously. "Enthusiasm" led people to do bizarre and absurd things, and it provided self-serving justifications for their actions with arrogant claims that "were neither based on reason nor revelation, but on the fantasies of a heated or arrogant mind." Locke likely saw his own experiences as a transition from the age of enthusiasm to the age of reason. Locke himself composed a humble epitaph for his tombstone, in which he advised his readers to judge him by his writings. The writings reveal this philosopher, and his most typical characteristic, undoubtedly, is the wise spirit sometimes called "common sense." Some have called his philosophy a "common sense philosophy," but this is too vague. If this means that he readily accepted the prevailing opinions of his time, then we can say that Locke's philosophy as "common sense" is inferior to that of Descartes, Kant, or Bradley. Of course, his own time influenced him, and he was clearly not uniquely original. However, his contribution was not the kind accepted by ordinary Englishmen of the 17th century. It is best to remember that even to someone as well-educated as Stillingfleet, Locke's philosophy seemed novel, revolutionary, and dangerous. Today, we find it very obvious, almost commonplace, which is due to its impact on us. Moreover, if a common sense philosophy is accepting the views accepted by ordinary, unthinking people at any time and place, such as the belief that the material world exists independently of the mind that perceives it, or that the spiritual world is real, we should still doubt whether Locke's philosophy is a common sense philosophy. Because such unthinking people would agree to all the doctrines proposed in Locke's writings, such as whether they could agree to the distinction between primary and secondary qualities? In reality, when we speak of Locke's "common sense," we mean very simply that he never allowed his arguments to lead him to any extreme claims. In other words, we refer to his wisdom and prudence, as the encyclopedists wanted to portray in Lesage Locke [the clever Locke]. Wisdom is a virtue that is in Locke's writings. For example, he must have been well aware that his views on material entities were inappropriate, and many of his statements were inevitably aimed at certain forms of idealism. However, he never pointed out such a theory. If Locke had lived to read Berkeley's works, he would have unhesitatingly considered Berkeley an outstanding thinker, though lacking caution. Additionally, like other philosophers, he was perplexed by the mind-body relationship and the problem of sensation. The physical and physiological accompanying phenomena of the sensation of white seemed completely unrelated to white, to the extent that Locke had to admit that the hypothesis of occasionalism was not entirely absurd. However, he did not accept occasionalism. The theory was too rash in solving a major problem, just as idealism was too rash in evading the difficulties arising from our incomplete knowledge of things. At other times, when an argument showed him that materialism had some truth to it, he was unwilling to accept materialism; and when he saw that Descartes' view that we could fully explain matter with extension was useful for science, he remembered that Descartes ignored the fact that we have the experience of solidity, and thus rejected Descartes' view. The cautious Locke avoided premature synthesis; and it is precisely this that explains why he did not give us a final, closed philosophical system. Chapter The Purpose and Aim of Locke's Works In the Preface to the Reader of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke wrote: "Philosophy is nothing but the true knowledge of things." What a person truly knows when they know it is the whole of knowledge, and in the last chapter of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke divides knowledge into three categories: physica or natural philosophy; practica or moral philosophy, and logic, "the doctrine of signs." The purpose of the philosopher is to build as perfect and appropriate a system as possible on these three sciences. Locke and his contemporaries were unaware of the distinction between philosophers and scientists that we know today. His research on social and moral issues was, of course, philosophical research, and his work in medicine also belonged to this research. In his eyes, Newton, Boyle, and Sydenham were all philosophers, and they were more entitled to this title than he was. He himself admitted that the philosophical component of his main work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was not too great; it was merely an introduction to philosophy. It is a study of the tools used to build philosophical structures (which he called "the understanding"). This must be kept in mind—it is merely an introductory work. If someone insists on equating the purpose of Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding with the purpose of a philosopher, Locke would hold them accountable. His purpose in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was to prepare the ground for the architect, not to build the skyscraper. "Our academic world today is not lacking in masters and giants whose extraordinary designs will leave eternal monuments worthy of respect for future generations. However, no one need hope to become a Boyle or a Sydenham, and even in the era that produced great figures like the brilliant Huygens and the unparalleled Mr. Newton, there were other great men, and we could consider ourselves ambitious if we could clear the ground and remove some of the debris blocking the path of knowledge." It is evident that An Essay Concerning Human Understanding provided some positive knowledge, such as knowledge in psychology and logic. However, providing this knowledge was not the primary purpose of the book. Its primary purpose was still to prepare the ground. Some blamed Locke for not presenting a final system in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is tantamount to blaming a janitor for merely clearing the ground without building the skyscraper. He believed that philosophy itself was not to be confused with this preliminary, critical work. Thus, Locke held that the purpose of philosophy was, on the one hand, to discover a systematic and appropriate body of knowledge, and on the other hand, its method was synthetic, while his own work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was designed to "remove some of the debris blocking the path of knowledge," and its method was analytical. It involved an analysis of the human understanding and the formation of complete self-awareness, which was far removed from mere philosophical discussion—it was merely preliminary. In the Preface to the Reader and in the main text of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke made his purpose clear. First, knowledge was hindered by "vague and meaningless forms of language," by "abused words" that had little or no meaning, which "led to errors in deep research and high speculation." From the context, it is clear that Locke had already formed an impression of a certain type of person—they always tried to show off their erudition by using very awkward terms that they themselves did not understand, and this did more to increase confusion and ignorance than knowledge. Locke held these people in contempt. However, unfortunately, those who used vague words and expressed their ideas with vague sentences were not academics. Locke believed that the common words and common sentences were full of ambiguity, which made it easier for us to go astray. Before Locke fully recognized the significance of the problem of language, after writing An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he devoted an entire volume to discussing it. Although the analysis in the third volume was undoubtedly rough and superficial, the author won the respect of the world by drawing people's attention to the issues he discussed and emphasizing its importance. Thus, Locke was aware from the outset that vague and confusing language was a major obstacle to knowledge and that it was his duty to point this out to the public. He also recognized that another obstacle was people being bound by incorrect methods. The search for an appropriate method for acquiring knowledge was an important issue emphasized by all thinkers of the 17th century. As Descartes explained, these thinkers believed that humans possessed cognitive abilities, but they often failed to obtain knowledge because their methods of cognition were wrong. Locke particularly pointed out that there were two tendencies in his time that led people to adopt incorrect methods. One tendency was to believe that knowledge must arise from certain principles or "axioms," which are innate and known prior to all experience. All the truth we obtain is derived from these principles. Locke completely rejected this view. He denied both innate knowledge and the idea that all the knowledge we acquire is the result of deducing truth from "axioms." The second tendency of Locke's time was to regard the syllogism as the true and only method of acquiring knowledge. Some schools blindly and stubbornly reduced all judgments to syllogisms, and Locke attacked them with all his might on the grounds that this practice had caused great harm to science. Locke believed that humans possess cognitive abilities, but he thought this ability was often limited, and it was even rendered ineffective by some theorists who insisted that knowledge must always be sustained by syllogisms and refused to acknowledge the validity of other methods, despite the fact that scientists of the time were rapidly advancing science using very different methods. Locke believed that his task was to liberate reason and expose the folly of those who bound it in this way. However, Locke recognized that there was a higher-level obstacle to knowledge, clearing it was more difficult and challenging than clearing the first two. The insatiable and endless curiosity of human beings themselves could become a major obstacle. Because people wanted to know what they had not yet known, and when they were frustrated and had to be frustrated, they became disheartened and turned into skeptics, even refusing to use their innate talents in areas where they had once correctly used them and had the potential to succeed. "People go beyond their abilities in their research, letting their thoughts wander into depths where they cannot find a firm footing, and it is no wonder that they raise questions and repeatedly provoke debates—questions that will never have a clear resolution, and thus they properly continue and increase their skepticism and finally confine them to complete skepticism." To help humanity escape this unfortunate predicament, Locke resolved to determine the limits of human knowledge. He hoped that once these limits were established, people would not rashly venture into questions whose nature was beyond the reach of their intellect. "If we could discover how far the understanding can extend its vision, how far its ability to obtain certain knowledge can reach, and know under what circumstances we can only judge and conjecture, then we can learn to be content with the knowledge we have acquired in this world." The abilities and talents bestowed upon humans by heaven are sufficient to enable them to live a life that is beneficial and useful. If they use their talents reasonably, there will still be much left for them to enjoy. They can increase their knowledge of nature, deepen their understanding of social and moral relationships, and experience a more fulfilling connection with God than they do now. "The things that humans can discover are enough to overwhelm their brains and exhaust their hands, and they will feel joy and satisfaction if they do not dare to complain about their own talents, abandon the blessings of heaven, and keep busy, because they are not great enough to grasp everything." Thus, the main purpose of Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is strictly speaking practical and utilitarian. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sought to discover the limits of human knowledge in order to more broadly adjust our lives and needs, to best adapt to the nature of the talents bestowed upon us by heaven, and not to waste our time seeking knowledge of things that are forever beyond the scope of our cognition.