What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #084
جون لوك: مقدمة قصيرة جدا
رأى جون لوك، أحدُ أعظمِ الفلاسفةِ الإنجليز في أواخرِ القرنِ السابع عشر ومَطلَعِ القرن الثامن عشر، في عملِه الرائعِ «مقالٌ في الفَهمِ البشري»؛ أن معرفَتَنا تنشأُ من الخبراتِ الحِسِّية وتصلُ إلينا في الأساس عن طريق الحواس؛ لكنَّ رسالةَ هذا العملِ أُسِيء فهمُها على نحوٍ غريبٍ. وفي هذا الكتاب من سلسلة «مقدمة قصيرة جدًّا»، يوضحُ جون دَن كيف وصلَ لوك إلى نظريته بشأن المعرفة، وكيف أن شرحَه لقِيَم التسامُح الليبرالية والحكومة المسئولة قد شكَّلَ أساسَ الفِكر الأوروبي المُستنير في القرن الثامن عشر.
118 pages, ebook
First published May 1, 1984
53 people are currently reading
1102 people want to read
About the author
John Dunn
299 books18 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads data base.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
October 4, 2020
Solid, fairly thorough given that it's a VSI, and maybe all you need to get the gist of Locke's thought, but attempts to do more with his political theory than with his epistemology. I would have liked to have seen more in the way of judiciously quoting of the Man, as, for a philosopher anyway, Locke really is a good writer (and a good example of writing from the period), while Mr. Dunn is more of a plodder here—though he never gets in the way of making sense, his sentence structure can be a bit idiosyncratic, and not in a refreshingly creative way.
He knows his Locke, though, and is at pains to dispel certain cliches about him (according to Dunn L is more sceptical about the possibility of knowledge than many might think him, and less celebratory of untrammeled property rights). The "Further Reading" section is also decidedly helpful—I nabbed several WTRs out of it :)
His final paragraph is also worth quoting in its entirety, as it not only anticipates both the furthering of the sceptical project by Hume and the "levelling" aspect of Benthamite utilitarianism, but also underscores Locke's personal commitment to, and faith in, the project of philosophy:
He knows his Locke, though, and is at pains to dispel certain cliches about him (according to Dunn L is more sceptical about the possibility of knowledge than many might think him, and less celebratory of untrammeled property rights). The "Further Reading" section is also decidedly helpful—I nabbed several WTRs out of it :)
His final paragraph is also worth quoting in its entirety, as it not only anticipates both the furthering of the sceptical project by Hume and the "levelling" aspect of Benthamite utilitarianism, but also underscores Locke's personal commitment to, and faith in, the project of philosophy:
The view that the game of push-pin, if men happen to enjoy it as much, is just as good as poetry is a slogan of the most influential modern theory of human good, the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. What led Locke to reject it is not the equally utilitarian (and singularly unconvincing) claim that truth is the pleasantest thing in the world, but the more fundamental conviction that truth is different from falsehood, that it can be found and is worth the seeking, and that when it is found it will tell man clearly how to live. It was in this conviction that he placed his trust and lived his life. Because of it, he still offers to us across the centuries the example of a lifetime of intellectual courage. It may well be that he was wrong to trust it. And if he was, we can hardly rely on his thinking to steady our own nerves. But what is certain is that we too shall need such intellectual courage every bit as urgently as he did.
Note: this text is identical to the chapter on Locke in the Oxford volume titled The British Empiricists: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, which also contains the VSI on Hume, as well as a chapter on Berkeley which is unavailable as of 2020 in a VSI edition, though you could buy it second hand as part of Oxford's now-superseded (but, as here, not in every case) Past Masters series of introductions—see: Berkeley
January 30, 2018
1) الجزء الذي يتعلق بآراء لوك السياسية ممل , و لم أفهم منه الكثير .
2) الجزء المخصص لآراءه حول المعرفة البشرية - على صغر ما خصص له من حجم - كان ممتعا , موجزا , واضحا لأبعد حد .و لم أتكلف العناء في فهمه .
3) إن ما يميز لوك شجاعته الفكرية , و إيمانه بوجود الحقيقة التي هي عكس الزيف - كما يعبّر عنها - , و آراءه حول المعرفة البشرية ملفتة , إلا أنه كما ديكارت , أتم رحلة الفكرية بوضع الإله فوق كل معرفة , وهنا تساوت كل أنواع المعرفة التي حاول جاهدا التمييز بينها .
فما يحل محل المعرفة الحقيقية في حياة الإنسان الواقعية , كما تصورها لوك , هو مزيج من الثقة و الدينونة في الإحسان الإلهي .
4) حسب اعتقاد لوك , تأتي قوة الشك في المقام الأول من تناقض ضمني بين قدرات الإنسان الأكثر تواضعا , على نحو ملموس , على فهم الطبيعة , و بين نوع من الفهم – الواضح و النهائي – الذي ينسبه الإنسان لله , لكنه لا يمكنه قطعا الوصول إليه بنفسه .
5) وفقا لآراء لوك عن الإيمان , يصعب المواءمة بين مصير كل هؤلاء البشر الذين لم يصلهم الوحي المسيحي , و بين مفهوم لوك عن منزلة الإنسان في الطبيعة و فهمه لقدرة الله و إحسانه .
2) الجزء المخصص لآراءه حول المعرفة البشرية - على صغر ما خصص له من حجم - كان ممتعا , موجزا , واضحا لأبعد حد .و لم أتكلف العناء في فهمه .
3) إن ما يميز لوك شجاعته الفكرية , و إيمانه بوجود الحقيقة التي هي عكس الزيف - كما يعبّر عنها - , و آراءه حول المعرفة البشرية ملفتة , إلا أنه كما ديكارت , أتم رحلة الفكرية بوضع الإله فوق كل معرفة , وهنا تساوت كل أنواع المعرفة التي حاول جاهدا التمييز بينها .
فما يحل محل المعرفة الحقيقية في حياة الإنسان الواقعية , كما تصورها لوك , هو مزيج من الثقة و الدينونة في الإحسان الإلهي .
4) حسب اعتقاد لوك , تأتي قوة الشك في المقام الأول من تناقض ضمني بين قدرات الإنسان الأكثر تواضعا , على نحو ملموس , على فهم الطبيعة , و بين نوع من الفهم – الواضح و النهائي – الذي ينسبه الإنسان لله , لكنه لا يمكنه قطعا الوصول إليه بنفسه .
5) وفقا لآراء لوك عن الإيمان , يصعب المواءمة بين مصير كل هؤلاء البشر الذين لم يصلهم الوحي المسيحي , و بين مفهوم لوك عن منزلة الإنسان في الطبيعة و فهمه لقدرة الله و إحسانه .
July 21, 2018
إن أعظم ما فى فلسفة جون لوك هما أمران اولهما هو عمق إدراكه والذى إستنتج منه صعوبة إجماع بنى البشر على فكرة معينة وثانيهما هو إيمانه بقدرة العقل البشرى على الوصول إلى المبادىء الأخلاقية التى يتعين عليه ان يبحث عنها بإستمرار .
ثم تأتى محاولة لوك لصياغة الأسس العملية الجديدة للعلاقات البشرية التى تحكمها الأخلاق فى إطار سياسى ومن ثم توجب عليه تحليل المجتمعات البشرية والمدنية القائمة بالفعل والعودة إلى أسسها وردها الى حالة الطبيعة أى حالة اللاإجتماع ومن ثم إعادة بنائها على أسس عقلية وهو يؤمن بقانون رئيسى طبيعى يستطيع كل إنسان فى حالة المجتمع المدنى او فى حالة الطبيعة الوصول إليه وهو ان لكل شخص الحق فى الدفاع عن ذاته وممتلكاته فى أى حالة إعتداء من قبل الآخرين وأن كل إساءة للغير يجب ان يتوقع حيالها مقاومة . وهذه الإساءة عندما تصحب بالمقاومة من الطرف الآخر هى حالة الحرب فى مفهوم لوك .
والدولة هى الوسيلة للحد من حالات الحرب ودورها هو حماية الأفراد وممتلكاتهم وأى خروج عن هذا الهدف العقلى الطبيعى يسقط شرعية الحاكم فى الدولة أياكان شكل الحكومة فيها .
ويؤسس لوك الحق فى الملكية على العمل . فالعمل هو ما يضفى الخصوصية على الأشياء الشائعة الملكية . كما يجعل التجربة أساس كل معرفة عقلية وهى التى تؤسس لأنواع المعارف الأخرى سواء المعرفة الحدسية أو البرهانية .
لكن أجمل ما وجدته فى هذا الكتاب هى فكرة أعممها دائما على كل الأعمال الفكرية وهى أن الإنتقادات التى تتلو أى نهج فلسفى لابد أنها ناتجة عن قصر فى فهم المنهج الذى يطرحه المفكر صاحب المنهج المنتقَد وفى هذه الحالة فنحن نتحدث عن إنتقادات هيوم بالذات لفلسفة جون لوك الذى يدرك مدى صعوبة التوصل لحلول عملية نافذة تؤدى إلى تقدم أو تطور حقيقى يعود بنفع حقيقى على الإنسانية وكذلك صعوبة توضيح بعض الحقائق رغم بساطتها وبداهتها للآخرين لإفتقارنا الى الكلمات المناسبة أو إلى إفتقار الآخرين للقدرة على التصور . ورغم كل المحاولات الهدامة للمثاليين الأوائل الذين أنكروا وجود حقائق يمكن أن يتوصل العقل إليها إلا أن نزعة لوك التى إتهموها بالتفاؤل باطلا هى التى سادت على روح الباروك بل وزادت فى تطرفها أملا فى إنشاء مجتمع مدنى مثالى يسيطر على الطبيعة بكل ما فيها .
إن أسوأ ما يمكن أن نخرج به من أى فلسفة هو التطرف فى الفهم والإيمان بهذه الفلسفة .
ثم تأتى محاولة لوك لصياغة الأسس العملية الجديدة للعلاقات البشرية التى تحكمها الأخلاق فى إطار سياسى ومن ثم توجب عليه تحليل المجتمعات البشرية والمدنية القائمة بالفعل والعودة إلى أسسها وردها الى حالة الطبيعة أى حالة اللاإجتماع ومن ثم إعادة بنائها على أسس عقلية وهو يؤمن بقانون رئيسى طبيعى يستطيع كل إنسان فى حالة المجتمع المدنى او فى حالة الطبيعة الوصول إليه وهو ان لكل شخص الحق فى الدفاع عن ذاته وممتلكاته فى أى حالة إعتداء من قبل الآخرين وأن كل إساءة للغير يجب ان يتوقع حيالها مقاومة . وهذه الإساءة عندما تصحب بالمقاومة من الطرف الآخر هى حالة الحرب فى مفهوم لوك .
والدولة هى الوسيلة للحد من حالات الحرب ودورها هو حماية الأفراد وممتلكاتهم وأى خروج عن هذا الهدف العقلى الطبيعى يسقط شرعية الحاكم فى الدولة أياكان شكل الحكومة فيها .
ويؤسس لوك الحق فى الملكية على العمل . فالعمل هو ما يضفى الخصوصية على الأشياء الشائعة الملكية . كما يجعل التجربة أساس كل معرفة عقلية وهى التى تؤسس لأنواع المعارف الأخرى سواء المعرفة الحدسية أو البرهانية .
لكن أجمل ما وجدته فى هذا الكتاب هى فكرة أعممها دائما على كل الأعمال الفكرية وهى أن الإنتقادات التى تتلو أى نهج فلسفى لابد أنها ناتجة عن قصر فى فهم المنهج الذى يطرحه المفكر صاحب المنهج المنتقَد وفى هذه الحالة فنحن نتحدث عن إنتقادات هيوم بالذات لفلسفة جون لوك الذى يدرك مدى صعوبة التوصل لحلول عملية نافذة تؤدى إلى تقدم أو تطور حقيقى يعود بنفع حقيقى على الإنسانية وكذلك صعوبة توضيح بعض الحقائق رغم بساطتها وبداهتها للآخرين لإفتقارنا الى الكلمات المناسبة أو إلى إفتقار الآخرين للقدرة على التصور . ورغم كل المحاولات الهدامة للمثاليين الأوائل الذين أنكروا وجود حقائق يمكن أن يتوصل العقل إليها إلا أن نزعة لوك التى إتهموها بالتفاؤل باطلا هى التى سادت على روح الباروك بل وزادت فى تطرفها أملا فى إنشاء مجتمع مدنى مثالى يسيطر على الطبيعة بكل ما فيها .
إن أسوأ ما يمكن أن نخرج به من أى فلسفة هو التطرف فى الفهم والإيمان بهذه الفلسفة .
March 21, 2017
This book also exists.
November 18, 2020
Locke
A Very Short Introduction #84
John Dunn
Locke is one of my favorite philosophers of his age, the second treaty of Two Treatises of Government is one of the best articles on Liberty and Property.
I like this issue of the VSI, it was simple and short, with only three chapters about his life, his ideas, and a conclusion.
I am going to try to pick up more of his work especially An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
A Very Short Introduction #84
John Dunn
Locke is one of my favorite philosophers of his age, the second treaty of Two Treatises of Government is one of the best articles on Liberty and Property.
I like this issue of the VSI, it was simple and short, with only three chapters about his life, his ideas, and a conclusion.
I am going to try to pick up more of his work especially An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
The truth is independent of human desires and tastes, and that at least part of it lies within the reach of human understanding, is a simple and widespread conviction. But it is not an easy conviction to explain and justify in any great depth. The task of a philosopher was to provide just such an explanation and defence.
Currently reading
April 2, 2021"No Innate Principles In The Mind.
It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain innate principles; some primary notions, ?οινα? ?ννοιαι, characters, as it were, stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being; and brings into the world with it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition...."
In: An Essay concerning Human Understanding
It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain innate principles; some primary notions, ?οινα? ?ννοιαι, characters, as it were, stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being; and brings into the world with it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition...."
In: An Essay concerning Human Understanding
January 14, 2020
مع قراءة أواخر صفحات الكتاب وهي عبارة عن رسالة من لوك الى صديقه ويليام، عرفت ان لوك عاش حيرانا ومات حيرانا صابتني القشعريرة وان أقرأ تلك السطور الأخيرة لواحد من الفلاسفة الذين لا يمكن تجاوزهم، الكتاب إنتهى ولكن الأسئلة لا تنتهي وهذه هي الفلسفة...
من وجهة نظري اهم ما جاء به لوك هي فكرة الليبرالية السياسية مع انها كانت ناقصة حيث لم يتسامح لوك مع الكاثوليك والملحدين الا انها كانت البذرة الأولى، ويجب الا ننسى انه في النهاية ابن عصره.
والفكرة الثانية هي في نظرية المعرفة وفكرة اللوحة البيضاء والتي كانت بداية لفلسفة العقل ونقاشات علم الأعصاب حتى عصرنا هذا.
أجمل واعظم فكرة لدى لوك من وجهة نظري في الكتاب:
"يستطيع الانسان ان يفكر ويعرف ويحكم بنفسه، ولا بد ان يفعل ذالك بما أنه لا يستطيع في نهاية المطاف ان يضع ثقته في اخرين ليتولوا هذا الامر عنه، عقول الأطفال عند الميلاد تشبه الورقة البيضاء، مع انهم في البداية يتأثرون بوضوح بالتاثير الفطري تماما لافكار بعينها من خلال الحواس، فانهم سرعان ما يشوهون ايضا بتعاليم الكبار الخرافية وغير المنطقية في اغلب الاحوال، وحالما تشوه عقولهم على هذا النحو، حيث يفوق العرف في قوته الطبيعية فلا سبيل الى اصلاح هذا التشويه الا عن طريق الجهد المتواصل الذي يستحثه الحب المتأصل لدى الانسان لمعرفة الحقيقة. والكلمات التي يعبر بها الانسان عن افكاره هي إحدى الطرق الرئيسية التي يتعرض خلالها لهذا التشويه"
من وجهة نظري اهم ما جاء به لوك هي فكرة الليبرالية السياسية مع انها كانت ناقصة حيث لم يتسامح لوك مع الكاثوليك والملحدين الا انها كانت البذرة الأولى، ويجب الا ننسى انه في النهاية ابن عصره.
والفكرة الثانية هي في نظرية المعرفة وفكرة اللوحة البيضاء والتي كانت بداية لفلسفة العقل ونقاشات علم الأعصاب حتى عصرنا هذا.
أجمل واعظم فكرة لدى لوك من وجهة نظري في الكتاب:
"يستطيع الانسان ان يفكر ويعرف ويحكم بنفسه، ولا بد ان يفعل ذالك بما أنه لا يستطيع في نهاية المطاف ان يضع ثقته في اخرين ليتولوا هذا الامر عنه، عقول الأطفال عند الميلاد تشبه الورقة البيضاء، مع انهم في البداية يتأثرون بوضوح بالتاثير الفطري تماما لافكار بعينها من خلال الحواس، فانهم سرعان ما يشوهون ايضا بتعاليم الكبار الخرافية وغير المنطقية في اغلب الاحوال، وحالما تشوه عقولهم على هذا النحو، حيث يفوق العرف في قوته الطبيعية فلا سبيل الى اصلاح هذا التشويه الا عن طريق الجهد المتواصل الذي يستحثه الحب المتأصل لدى الانسان لمعرفة الحقيقة. والكلمات التي يعبر بها الانسان عن افكاره هي إحدى الطرق الرئيسية التي يتعرض خلالها لهذا التشويه"
May 30, 2018
إن حياة جون لوك جديرة بالإهتمام حقا
لقد تعرفت عليه بدءا من خلال أفكاره في التربية ، و تفسيره للمعرفه ونظريته حول الفهم البشري
و قد وجدت أن الكتاب أضاء هذا الجانب بشكل لا بأس به وإن كان بشكل موجز - إذ أن الكتاب ذُيّل باسم مقدمة قصيرة جدا -
الجزء الذي أخذ حيزا أكبر من الكتاب ألا و هو الحديث عن الجانب السياسي كان مشوشا و غير مفهوم بشكل جيد و لا أعلم إن كان ذلك مرده صياغةالأفكار ذاتها أو الترجمه ، أو أنه ليعود لخلل بي أنا شخصيا
شوط طويل قطعته أفكار جون لوك
شوط طويل لتصبح مسموعة و مؤثرة و فاعلة
أفكاره التي قوبلت بالرفض سابقا
لقد تبين أثرها واضحا فيما بعد
تجربة ثانية في المقدمات القصيرة لمؤسسة هندواي - لم احب صياغة الكتاب كثيرا - إنما أحببت موضوعه
لقد تعرفت عليه بدءا من خلال أفكاره في التربية ، و تفسيره للمعرفه ونظريته حول الفهم البشري
و قد وجدت أن الكتاب أضاء هذا الجانب بشكل لا بأس به وإن كان بشكل موجز - إذ أن الكتاب ذُيّل باسم مقدمة قصيرة جدا -
الجزء الذي أخذ حيزا أكبر من الكتاب ألا و هو الحديث عن الجانب السياسي كان مشوشا و غير مفهوم بشكل جيد و لا أعلم إن كان ذلك مرده صياغةالأفكار ذاتها أو الترجمه ، أو أنه ليعود لخلل بي أنا شخصيا
شوط طويل قطعته أفكار جون لوك
شوط طويل لتصبح مسموعة و مؤثرة و فاعلة
أفكاره التي قوبلت بالرفض سابقا
لقد تبين أثرها واضحا فيما بعد
تجربة ثانية في المقدمات القصيرة لمؤسسة هندواي - لم احب صياغة الكتاب كثيرا - إنما أحببت موضوعه
December 13, 2025
An illuminating introduction to the political, moral, philosophical, and religious ideas of "the greatest man in the world" at the turn of the eighteenth century. Dunn knows Locke, and he knows how to write. Scholarship of this calibre is a delight to read, and this volume is one of the best of the series - i.e. Oxford's 'A Very Short Introduction.'
June 13, 2021
This little book is punchy, concise, and surprisingly comprehensive on the key elements of Locke's thought and implications. We get a full sense that Locke's views on government, society and culture, the nature of knowledge, reason, and the individual, whether they are right are wrong, are all deeply connected. From the macro to the micro and back, we don't get , say, religious liberty, without Locke's ideas on the individual nature of belief. They are intertwined and inextricable. For such a tiny book, my notes are copious! Reader beware:
On Religious Liberty
Locke put his trust in "working through, and making more accessible... a culture of shared religious good intentions" (25). The idea being, that if humans could see their own limitations in knowledge, especially of the divine variety, they would be more apt to tolerate differences as well as work towards a common good without dogma and force. Of course, as we know, the shared good intentions of ecumenical believers gives way, in the 20th century, to the shared good secular intentions-- but as with the religious wars of the 17th and 18th century, massive and destructive disagreements about which secular intentions are truly good led to war, strife, and constant wrangling (as we now experience).
Locke saw at the heart of religious conflict the primacy of authenticity over decency (28). When dogmatic certainty in interpretive societies (denominations) compels a struggle for power, one group puts their version of Christianity at violent odds with others. In Two Tracts on Government, Locke writes, "all those tragic revolutions which have exercised Christendom these many years have turned upon this hinge (of dogma and authenticity)" and, "that there hath been no design so wicked which hath not been so kind to itself as to assume the specious name of reformation... none ever went about to ruin the state but with pretence to build the temple" (Government 160). Locke finds vile and wicked the deadly mixing of power politics under the banner of correct interpretation of Scripture. We might say that it was out of the growth of ideas that Locke here is putting forth here that allowed America, for the most part, to escape this fate. Crevecoeur's famous anecdote in 1782 about the Catholic, the Lutheran, the seceder, and the Dutchman living in peaceful proximity attest to this lack of "strict modes of Christianity"in America. This isn't to say that fundamental conceptions of faith didn't matter, but the decency of neighborliness seems to matter more.
On Authority and Natural Rights
The religious toleration springs out of Locke's ideas about individual agency, and connects to his ideas about the nature of knowledge as well as good government. Locke believes that each person is responsible for their own salvation (32), so this naturally turns one's greatest commitments and convictions inward, as opposed to outward authority. The role of the magistrate is to preserve civil order, not force ideology onto its subjects (33). Locke thinks that subjects have a duty to obey authority for civic harmony, but this obedience becomes impossible when authority meddles with freedom of conscience (33). Just as it is every Christian's duty to preserve civil society and live in accordance with authority (37), it is not in the purview of the magistrate to step into the place of the church and command its subjects on the correct forms of worship (41). But this wasn't simply a matter of divine rights of, say, kings and queens. In order for this to work, Locke thought that the rulers had to act in a way in which they deserved obedience. It was a two way street. The hierarchy of power could be divinely instituted, but it requires rulers to act according to Locke's ideas about benign government. If not, that authority was fraudulent and against God's will.
Locke is famous for setting out the "natural rights" man-- that is, the right to life, to liberty, and the right to own property. In terms of property, Locke has both a theological and practical approach to private property, and each complements the other. The theological justifications can be found in Genesis, where Adam and Eve are given dominion over the land. The practical justification was labor. Whosoever works and improves the land, has the right to ownership of the land (44). To bring these two together, whosoever has exercised both dominion and stewardship over nature has the right to enjoy the fruits of their work in posterity (44). Locke saw a natural harmony in this idea of labor-- that people would only work what they could, and no more; and thus the distribution of property would be proportional to the amount of labor that was willing to be done. While this might sound naive and utopian, it may just stand to reason that minus greed and avarice, the correlation between labor and property could perhaps work. Of course, we've never lived in such a place free of greed and avarice, so we will never know if this equation works out or not. What ruins this fantasy of proportional ownership is the invention of money (45), which allows humans to escape the limits of labor and land. The person with money can own more and more land with little or no labor (45). So it goes. This is a problem Locke cannot solve.
The responsibility of authority is to protect the natural rights of humans, and this includes the right to material possession. This is radical, because it means that the Queen doesn't have divine dominion over property (as she had for centuries), but the duty to protect the rights of earned dominion by its subjects. While this idea of the spoils going to the hardest, best, and most able workers might sound like social darwinism, Locke also believed that the inherent dignity of humankind meant that all had a right to subsistence that overrode property rights (48). For example, if one is denied subsistence because of their inability to meet the market price, then those who insist only on the market price or nothing are guilty, in Locke's view, of murder (49). If someone were starving and I denied them their cheeseburger because they didn't have $1.99, then I would be a murderer. So charity features into Locke's conceptions of rights and duties (49).
Trust and Reason as the Bedrock of Government
Rights are essential and universal in Locke's views, and thus the power of authority is actually the power to serve (52). Furthermore, those in power were identical to their subjects in their humanity and all of its attendant moral failings. Absolute power and force is tyrannical rather than divinely appointed. The thing that the king needs to marshall just as much as his subjects is reason. For Locke, reason is the opposite of beastly force-- it's what distinguishes humans and the way that God wills for humanity to follow (52). It is only within a society of individuals, both under and in authority, who are practicing reason, where the idea of rights is most clearly seen. It is reason that creates a civil society. "As rational creatures of God, living in a world created by God, all men are equal with one another, equal in their fundamental entitlements, and equal to in the duties which they owe" (52). These rights are part of Locke's conception of natural rights (53). In a society where these rights are guaranteed (what Locke calls a legitimate political society (57)O, political power becomes a concept of trust and consent. A true society is built on trust, and authority in a society of trust is only given by consent. In other words, members who trust one another can put their trust in rulers because they know that concentrated power of authority can lead to "Safety, Ease, and Plenty" (58). But this trust, for Locke, only works in God-fearing communities because those who believed in God's authority were trustworthy. Atheists, in Locke's views, being under no such Divine authority, were not trustworthy because they were under no cosmic obligation to be good citizens (59). While modern readers may leave or take the God idea in what makes someone trustworthy, we still see how this idea of trust is important in modern politics and daily life. Community is built on trust and when that trust is broken, community disintegrates.
This idea of trust as the bedrock of society reframes our notions of revolution. A just revolution is one in which "a clear threat, actual or potential, to the estates, liberties, and lives" of the majority, and under "a long train of Actings" (Second 209, 220) instigates righteous action in overturning authority. The just revolution, then, is not driven by revenge or power moves, but a restoration of the violated political order, one divinely instituted. We can see in the language here its direct influence on America's Declaration, especially of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" leveled against corrupt power and the notion of just powers coming from the consent of the governed. Revolution then, for Locke, is not supposed to be about one radical ideology overthrowing another, but a restoration of the one legitimate type of power for all time and all places. Again, we are entering, perhaps, fantasy lands because Locke would have been hard pressed to locate any such society in history up until that point. But, even if this type of government had never existed, this giant idea would, and will continue to, shape and influence the formation of democratic societies moving forward.
On Knowledge, Belief, and Faith
In order for a society to be built on trust and consent, it needs to be made up of individuals who can know things, who can act morally, and who can use reason to order their own lives. Something essential to Locke's ideas about the individual is that we are all moral free agents. That means that we are responsible for not only our actions but the beliefs we hold. Locke explores this by first positing that Natural Law is something that can be grasped by the use of reason and experience (67). His theological justification was that God gives us the use of reason for the purpose of at least approaching an understanding of this (67). We are offered four ways of "knowing": 1. Inscription, or innate knowledge, even the biblical idea that the law is written in our hearts. Locke rejects this idea because he clearly saw that all people in all places did not agree on principles. 2. Tradition, knowledge accumulated and passed down. This is also rejected on the basis that different societies hold different moral convictions (68) and therefore cannot be trusted as capital T true. 3. Revelation or supernatural inspiration- this has to be rejected because even though Locke conceded that revelation can happen, it is beyond human agency and beyond our reasoning out, as it were, this kind of knowledge. This leaves us with number 4. Sense-experience, or that which we grasp through both our our immediate senses and then rationally process. This is the only form of "knowledge" that Locke believes will bring us to a clearer understanding of Natural Law, and really the only one that we can rely on. But this doesn't mean that we should just simply rely on it, as reason, in the example of language, is corrupted. For example, people's beliefs come largely from the language of others (we hear, assess, and believe or reject propositions from others), but "speech is marked by the corruption of human sin" (68). This is where the workings of the mind, and experience as teacher, we come to a rational understanding of things and can form beliefs that we can trust: "Because human beings are free, they must think and judge for themselves. Reason must be their last judge and guide in everything (69). But coming to understanding involves a rational undertaking, of what Locke calls "Pains and Applications" (echoes of the Apostle Paul's maxim to test everything and hold to what is good (1 Thess. 5.21)). Here inlies a problem for Locke (and for us). Why couldn't most people in most of history not act out of reason? Why had we all gotten it so wrong for so long? Locke doesn't seem to be able to answer this definitively, but he seems to concede that no matter the sober and honest reflection (which is necessary), humanity is still limited (what he calls mediocre) (70). Despite our limitations, for Locke, knowledge of God was a certainty: "we more certainly know that there is a GOD, than there is anything else without us" (72). As unsatisfying as this may sound to a good many modern ears, this is for Locke what humankind, while using our faculties of reason to the best of our abilities, can hinge the entire thing on and have hope in. It extends, perhaps, the trust to the metaphysical ground of being: "the Will and Law of a God, who sees men in the dark, has in his Hand Rewards and Punishments, and Power enough to call account the Proudest Offender" (from Essays 69, qtd. on 72). Knowledge is a gift from divine will, and though humanity is limited in its capacity to know perfectly, it is this will, as Locke sees it, that we must strive towards through reason. This is not, in the Kierkegaardian sense, a leap of faith; but rather a faith that is inseparable from the highest attempts of reason to penetrate deeper truths.
This belief in the Christian revelation for Locke is for all people at all times and places the bedrock of morality. But this isn't merely a universalizing of innate, or inscribed patterns of morality in the hearts of all men. For Locke, as mentioned earlier, "moral consciousness is not innate in human beings" (73). What seems to be at work here, then, is "demonstrative ethics"-- that through reason, "with care and good faith" we examine our situation, and through this reflection we check our desires and our impulses. Locke's attention given to Paul's epistles reveals what, in theological terms, we might call "sanctification", or the working of the spirit in a kind of progression towards holiness. If this is the case, then Locke might equate reason itself as the God-given mechanism at work in this kind of sanctification. For example, given our status as rational creatures, we make rational choices to delay gratification, forgo satisfying desires that have unsalutary consequences, check our greed, and so on. This process elevates us over what Locke would call the "natural condition of man" and what Paul would call "sinful flesh". Our natural condition is not "a placid one"-- our natural or adopted desires compel and have a will of their own, and we are not free from those impulses and desires. But if a standard of ethics exists beyond human preference and appetite, then humans are free to choose (76, 77). For Locke, that standard is Christianity, and I think it helps again to use the language of Paul: that the believer in Christ is no longer a "slave to sin."
While humankind is restricted and limited in what know in our finitude, Locke is certain that we can know that we know. In other words, we can know that we have knowledge. He believes that we can also distinguish between what we can hope to know from what we can never know (78). We can know that we are limited. While knowledge itself is not innate, rational faculties are. Reason itself, applied or misapplied, is universal (79). Knowledge is something accumulated by experience, and we then understand that experience rationally, coming to conclusions through application and "testing" how they correspond to nature and the thoughts of others. For example, if I experience the color green in an object, I compare that to other instances of green in the environment and the thoughts of other people. This "testing" allows me to come to a rational conclusion in what Locke calls a "conversant" manner. But there is a danger here, too. Because of the conversant nature of knowledge, I can also arrive at irrational beliefs about the nature of reality through other people. Because children are blank slates, they can form beliefs through their parents and immediate communities that result in corrupt custom verses rational belief, i.e. prejudices, superstitions, and other irrational beliefs. Part of the corruption comes from language which must "interpose" between ideas and knowledge. Words can be vague or confusing, and this is a barrier to pure ideas ("a mist before our Eyes"). It is the task of the individual, through a "lifetime's unrelenting effort, fired by a genuine love of truth itself" that we "can do much to repair the damage" wrought by custom (80). In other words, the truly rational being is not just a product of their environment-- they are also moral and rational agents.
We can see how this idea of the rational agent is a prelude to fairly radical individualism. This doesn't necessarily vitiate community or tradition, but it takes the locus of human understanding away from them and puts it on the individual. I exist within a community that holds certain beliefs, but it is within myself as the individual agent to come to rational conclusions on the validity of those beliefs. This is the apex of human freedom. There's a catch, though. Because knowledge is "conversant" (i.e. it has to correspond with the knowledge of others), what we come to know doesn't happen in a solipsistic vacuum. My idea of green has to correspond to your idea of green, and that forms within certain environments, communities, and through discursive relationships. We don't just experience something and then know it-- it requires ideas, reflection, and testing.
Since we don't automatically know anything, we don't have genuine knowledge of morality (93). This is where faith steps in. Since we don't have direct access to Jesus as the disciples did, we are left to consider the evidence that we have access to, and deem its trustworthiness. Faith is a form of trust, not knowing. It is not against reason, but beyond it (91). Humans have a modest ability to understand anything and so must put their trust in something that transcends their understanding. The beginning of faith is the humble recognition of our limitations. For Locke, skepticism is kind of "presumptuous demand that men should be able to understand nature as clearly as God does" (94). The opposite of this presumption is, for Locke, that we know our limitations, but trust in truth beyond our limitations. God asks Job, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding" (38:4). The implication here is that rather than seeing our limitations as the end of what can be known to be true, we trust that Truth exists despite our inability to grasp it. While this does not, as it did for Locke, necessarily land us on Christian revelation particularly, for me it offers compelling insight into the relationship between reason and faith.
On Religious Liberty
Locke put his trust in "working through, and making more accessible... a culture of shared religious good intentions" (25). The idea being, that if humans could see their own limitations in knowledge, especially of the divine variety, they would be more apt to tolerate differences as well as work towards a common good without dogma and force. Of course, as we know, the shared good intentions of ecumenical believers gives way, in the 20th century, to the shared good secular intentions-- but as with the religious wars of the 17th and 18th century, massive and destructive disagreements about which secular intentions are truly good led to war, strife, and constant wrangling (as we now experience).
Locke saw at the heart of religious conflict the primacy of authenticity over decency (28). When dogmatic certainty in interpretive societies (denominations) compels a struggle for power, one group puts their version of Christianity at violent odds with others. In Two Tracts on Government, Locke writes, "all those tragic revolutions which have exercised Christendom these many years have turned upon this hinge (of dogma and authenticity)" and, "that there hath been no design so wicked which hath not been so kind to itself as to assume the specious name of reformation... none ever went about to ruin the state but with pretence to build the temple" (Government 160). Locke finds vile and wicked the deadly mixing of power politics under the banner of correct interpretation of Scripture. We might say that it was out of the growth of ideas that Locke here is putting forth here that allowed America, for the most part, to escape this fate. Crevecoeur's famous anecdote in 1782 about the Catholic, the Lutheran, the seceder, and the Dutchman living in peaceful proximity attest to this lack of "strict modes of Christianity"in America. This isn't to say that fundamental conceptions of faith didn't matter, but the decency of neighborliness seems to matter more.
On Authority and Natural Rights
The religious toleration springs out of Locke's ideas about individual agency, and connects to his ideas about the nature of knowledge as well as good government. Locke believes that each person is responsible for their own salvation (32), so this naturally turns one's greatest commitments and convictions inward, as opposed to outward authority. The role of the magistrate is to preserve civil order, not force ideology onto its subjects (33). Locke thinks that subjects have a duty to obey authority for civic harmony, but this obedience becomes impossible when authority meddles with freedom of conscience (33). Just as it is every Christian's duty to preserve civil society and live in accordance with authority (37), it is not in the purview of the magistrate to step into the place of the church and command its subjects on the correct forms of worship (41). But this wasn't simply a matter of divine rights of, say, kings and queens. In order for this to work, Locke thought that the rulers had to act in a way in which they deserved obedience. It was a two way street. The hierarchy of power could be divinely instituted, but it requires rulers to act according to Locke's ideas about benign government. If not, that authority was fraudulent and against God's will.
Locke is famous for setting out the "natural rights" man-- that is, the right to life, to liberty, and the right to own property. In terms of property, Locke has both a theological and practical approach to private property, and each complements the other. The theological justifications can be found in Genesis, where Adam and Eve are given dominion over the land. The practical justification was labor. Whosoever works and improves the land, has the right to ownership of the land (44). To bring these two together, whosoever has exercised both dominion and stewardship over nature has the right to enjoy the fruits of their work in posterity (44). Locke saw a natural harmony in this idea of labor-- that people would only work what they could, and no more; and thus the distribution of property would be proportional to the amount of labor that was willing to be done. While this might sound naive and utopian, it may just stand to reason that minus greed and avarice, the correlation between labor and property could perhaps work. Of course, we've never lived in such a place free of greed and avarice, so we will never know if this equation works out or not. What ruins this fantasy of proportional ownership is the invention of money (45), which allows humans to escape the limits of labor and land. The person with money can own more and more land with little or no labor (45). So it goes. This is a problem Locke cannot solve.
The responsibility of authority is to protect the natural rights of humans, and this includes the right to material possession. This is radical, because it means that the Queen doesn't have divine dominion over property (as she had for centuries), but the duty to protect the rights of earned dominion by its subjects. While this idea of the spoils going to the hardest, best, and most able workers might sound like social darwinism, Locke also believed that the inherent dignity of humankind meant that all had a right to subsistence that overrode property rights (48). For example, if one is denied subsistence because of their inability to meet the market price, then those who insist only on the market price or nothing are guilty, in Locke's view, of murder (49). If someone were starving and I denied them their cheeseburger because they didn't have $1.99, then I would be a murderer. So charity features into Locke's conceptions of rights and duties (49).
Trust and Reason as the Bedrock of Government
Rights are essential and universal in Locke's views, and thus the power of authority is actually the power to serve (52). Furthermore, those in power were identical to their subjects in their humanity and all of its attendant moral failings. Absolute power and force is tyrannical rather than divinely appointed. The thing that the king needs to marshall just as much as his subjects is reason. For Locke, reason is the opposite of beastly force-- it's what distinguishes humans and the way that God wills for humanity to follow (52). It is only within a society of individuals, both under and in authority, who are practicing reason, where the idea of rights is most clearly seen. It is reason that creates a civil society. "As rational creatures of God, living in a world created by God, all men are equal with one another, equal in their fundamental entitlements, and equal to in the duties which they owe" (52). These rights are part of Locke's conception of natural rights (53). In a society where these rights are guaranteed (what Locke calls a legitimate political society (57)O, political power becomes a concept of trust and consent. A true society is built on trust, and authority in a society of trust is only given by consent. In other words, members who trust one another can put their trust in rulers because they know that concentrated power of authority can lead to "Safety, Ease, and Plenty" (58). But this trust, for Locke, only works in God-fearing communities because those who believed in God's authority were trustworthy. Atheists, in Locke's views, being under no such Divine authority, were not trustworthy because they were under no cosmic obligation to be good citizens (59). While modern readers may leave or take the God idea in what makes someone trustworthy, we still see how this idea of trust is important in modern politics and daily life. Community is built on trust and when that trust is broken, community disintegrates.
This idea of trust as the bedrock of society reframes our notions of revolution. A just revolution is one in which "a clear threat, actual or potential, to the estates, liberties, and lives" of the majority, and under "a long train of Actings" (Second 209, 220) instigates righteous action in overturning authority. The just revolution, then, is not driven by revenge or power moves, but a restoration of the violated political order, one divinely instituted. We can see in the language here its direct influence on America's Declaration, especially of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" leveled against corrupt power and the notion of just powers coming from the consent of the governed. Revolution then, for Locke, is not supposed to be about one radical ideology overthrowing another, but a restoration of the one legitimate type of power for all time and all places. Again, we are entering, perhaps, fantasy lands because Locke would have been hard pressed to locate any such society in history up until that point. But, even if this type of government had never existed, this giant idea would, and will continue to, shape and influence the formation of democratic societies moving forward.
On Knowledge, Belief, and Faith
In order for a society to be built on trust and consent, it needs to be made up of individuals who can know things, who can act morally, and who can use reason to order their own lives. Something essential to Locke's ideas about the individual is that we are all moral free agents. That means that we are responsible for not only our actions but the beliefs we hold. Locke explores this by first positing that Natural Law is something that can be grasped by the use of reason and experience (67). His theological justification was that God gives us the use of reason for the purpose of at least approaching an understanding of this (67). We are offered four ways of "knowing": 1. Inscription, or innate knowledge, even the biblical idea that the law is written in our hearts. Locke rejects this idea because he clearly saw that all people in all places did not agree on principles. 2. Tradition, knowledge accumulated and passed down. This is also rejected on the basis that different societies hold different moral convictions (68) and therefore cannot be trusted as capital T true. 3. Revelation or supernatural inspiration- this has to be rejected because even though Locke conceded that revelation can happen, it is beyond human agency and beyond our reasoning out, as it were, this kind of knowledge. This leaves us with number 4. Sense-experience, or that which we grasp through both our our immediate senses and then rationally process. This is the only form of "knowledge" that Locke believes will bring us to a clearer understanding of Natural Law, and really the only one that we can rely on. But this doesn't mean that we should just simply rely on it, as reason, in the example of language, is corrupted. For example, people's beliefs come largely from the language of others (we hear, assess, and believe or reject propositions from others), but "speech is marked by the corruption of human sin" (68). This is where the workings of the mind, and experience as teacher, we come to a rational understanding of things and can form beliefs that we can trust: "Because human beings are free, they must think and judge for themselves. Reason must be their last judge and guide in everything (69). But coming to understanding involves a rational undertaking, of what Locke calls "Pains and Applications" (echoes of the Apostle Paul's maxim to test everything and hold to what is good (1 Thess. 5.21)). Here inlies a problem for Locke (and for us). Why couldn't most people in most of history not act out of reason? Why had we all gotten it so wrong for so long? Locke doesn't seem to be able to answer this definitively, but he seems to concede that no matter the sober and honest reflection (which is necessary), humanity is still limited (what he calls mediocre) (70). Despite our limitations, for Locke, knowledge of God was a certainty: "we more certainly know that there is a GOD, than there is anything else without us" (72). As unsatisfying as this may sound to a good many modern ears, this is for Locke what humankind, while using our faculties of reason to the best of our abilities, can hinge the entire thing on and have hope in. It extends, perhaps, the trust to the metaphysical ground of being: "the Will and Law of a God, who sees men in the dark, has in his Hand Rewards and Punishments, and Power enough to call account the Proudest Offender" (from Essays 69, qtd. on 72). Knowledge is a gift from divine will, and though humanity is limited in its capacity to know perfectly, it is this will, as Locke sees it, that we must strive towards through reason. This is not, in the Kierkegaardian sense, a leap of faith; but rather a faith that is inseparable from the highest attempts of reason to penetrate deeper truths.
This belief in the Christian revelation for Locke is for all people at all times and places the bedrock of morality. But this isn't merely a universalizing of innate, or inscribed patterns of morality in the hearts of all men. For Locke, as mentioned earlier, "moral consciousness is not innate in human beings" (73). What seems to be at work here, then, is "demonstrative ethics"-- that through reason, "with care and good faith" we examine our situation, and through this reflection we check our desires and our impulses. Locke's attention given to Paul's epistles reveals what, in theological terms, we might call "sanctification", or the working of the spirit in a kind of progression towards holiness. If this is the case, then Locke might equate reason itself as the God-given mechanism at work in this kind of sanctification. For example, given our status as rational creatures, we make rational choices to delay gratification, forgo satisfying desires that have unsalutary consequences, check our greed, and so on. This process elevates us over what Locke would call the "natural condition of man" and what Paul would call "sinful flesh". Our natural condition is not "a placid one"-- our natural or adopted desires compel and have a will of their own, and we are not free from those impulses and desires. But if a standard of ethics exists beyond human preference and appetite, then humans are free to choose (76, 77). For Locke, that standard is Christianity, and I think it helps again to use the language of Paul: that the believer in Christ is no longer a "slave to sin."
While humankind is restricted and limited in what know in our finitude, Locke is certain that we can know that we know. In other words, we can know that we have knowledge. He believes that we can also distinguish between what we can hope to know from what we can never know (78). We can know that we are limited. While knowledge itself is not innate, rational faculties are. Reason itself, applied or misapplied, is universal (79). Knowledge is something accumulated by experience, and we then understand that experience rationally, coming to conclusions through application and "testing" how they correspond to nature and the thoughts of others. For example, if I experience the color green in an object, I compare that to other instances of green in the environment and the thoughts of other people. This "testing" allows me to come to a rational conclusion in what Locke calls a "conversant" manner. But there is a danger here, too. Because of the conversant nature of knowledge, I can also arrive at irrational beliefs about the nature of reality through other people. Because children are blank slates, they can form beliefs through their parents and immediate communities that result in corrupt custom verses rational belief, i.e. prejudices, superstitions, and other irrational beliefs. Part of the corruption comes from language which must "interpose" between ideas and knowledge. Words can be vague or confusing, and this is a barrier to pure ideas ("a mist before our Eyes"). It is the task of the individual, through a "lifetime's unrelenting effort, fired by a genuine love of truth itself" that we "can do much to repair the damage" wrought by custom (80). In other words, the truly rational being is not just a product of their environment-- they are also moral and rational agents.
We can see how this idea of the rational agent is a prelude to fairly radical individualism. This doesn't necessarily vitiate community or tradition, but it takes the locus of human understanding away from them and puts it on the individual. I exist within a community that holds certain beliefs, but it is within myself as the individual agent to come to rational conclusions on the validity of those beliefs. This is the apex of human freedom. There's a catch, though. Because knowledge is "conversant" (i.e. it has to correspond with the knowledge of others), what we come to know doesn't happen in a solipsistic vacuum. My idea of green has to correspond to your idea of green, and that forms within certain environments, communities, and through discursive relationships. We don't just experience something and then know it-- it requires ideas, reflection, and testing.
Since we don't automatically know anything, we don't have genuine knowledge of morality (93). This is where faith steps in. Since we don't have direct access to Jesus as the disciples did, we are left to consider the evidence that we have access to, and deem its trustworthiness. Faith is a form of trust, not knowing. It is not against reason, but beyond it (91). Humans have a modest ability to understand anything and so must put their trust in something that transcends their understanding. The beginning of faith is the humble recognition of our limitations. For Locke, skepticism is kind of "presumptuous demand that men should be able to understand nature as clearly as God does" (94). The opposite of this presumption is, for Locke, that we know our limitations, but trust in truth beyond our limitations. God asks Job, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding" (38:4). The implication here is that rather than seeing our limitations as the end of what can be known to be true, we trust that Truth exists despite our inability to grasp it. While this does not, as it did for Locke, necessarily land us on Christian revelation particularly, for me it offers compelling insight into the relationship between reason and faith.
October 29, 2020
I’ve never fully convinced myself about the importance of ancient and pre-modern philosophy or science. I understand ancient art as a perspective of human existence but science is objective, and I consume historical science, like Aristotelian astronomy like I would literature and art, it is interesting in itself and not in its value from explaining reality. This is not a very satisfying way of consuming ancient philosophy. In reading Locke, I’ve discovered a different experience though, one that ties neatly with my fascination and love for polymaths. There’s a reason I like fantasy fiction over regular fiction, the scale and scope of the universe. A big differentiator of good fantasy, like Tolkien, is its singularity of vision in creating a universe with language, culture, history and science, all of which are startlingly different or fascinatingly similar to our own. While Locke’s individual views on law, justice, theology, psychology, free will, abstraction, learning may or may not hold up to modern advances in knowledge, morality and philosophy, the fact that they stem from a set of axioms to be taken as self-evident and then built outwards to explore the derivations of those axioms in all their distance and depth of implication, is not only immortal but instructive in the discipline of epistemology and the process of reason, together constituting one of the most blindingly clear snapshots of consciousness at work in a mind of exemplar genius.
Notes
Labour is what distinguishes what is privately owned from what is held in common; the labour of a man’s body and the work of his hands. Labour is the unquestionable property of the labourer; and by mixing his labour with material objects – hunting (II 30), gathering (II 28), but also cultivating the ground (II 32–4) – a man acquires the right to what he has worked on and to what he has made of this material.
The industrious and rational are obliged to make good use of it. It is not simply theirs, to do with precisely as they fancy. They are its stewards and must display their stewardship in their industry as well as in their rationality.
Like any other man who has used the force of war to enforce his ends unjustly upon another, a tyrant has revolted from his own kind ‘to that of Beasts by making Force which is theirs, to be his rule of right’. In doing so he has rendered himself ‘liable to be destroied by the injur’d person and the rest of mankind, that will joyn with him in the execution of Justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute with whom Mankind can have neither Society nor Security’
Revolution for Locke is not an act of revenge; it is an act of restoration, of the re-creation of a violated political order.
the question of how exactly men could know what the law was. Four possible ways of knowing are outlined: inscription, tradition, sense-experience, and supernatural, or divine, revelation.
I am apt to think, that Men, when they come to examine them, find their simple Ideas all generally to agree, though in discourse with one another, they perhaps confound one another with different Names. I imagine, that Men who abstract their Thoughts, and do well examine the Ideas of their own Minds, cannot much differ in thinking.
We are seldom at our ease, and free enough from the sollicitation of our natural or adopted desires, but a constant succession of uneasinesses out of that stock, which natural wants, or acquired habits have heaped up, take the will in their turns; and no sooner is one action dispatch’d, which by such a determination of the will we are set upon, but another uneasiness is ready to set us on work.
Any true general conclusions at which they arrive apply only in so far as other particular relations in nature, or in the thought of other men, correspond to them (680–1). Ideas themselves are all either simple or complex. If simple, they derive directly from the senses (310–12), the inlets of knowledge. If complex, they are formed by the voluntary mental union (163) of simple ideas.
Men have three principal types of knowledge: intuitive, demonstrative, and sensitive. (The status of memory is a little unclear.) Of these, intuition is the most certain because it is the least avoidable. God’s knowledge is intuitive. He sees everything at once and hence has no need, as men do, to reason (M 52). The main truth which men know intuitively is their own existence:
Extreme mental and verbal self-consciousness is required for men to secure the fullest control of the conduct of their own understandings. Systematic scientific research and philosophical discourse are the public and practical expressions of a form of mental care and responsibility that all men, within the limits of their social opportunities, have the duty to undertake.
Man has divine right to personal property: Locke felt no real distinction between property by sweat of labor, or by inheritance, but for popular appeal he made property linked solely to the fruits of labor, and how we have right over our labor.
Labor theory of property is complicated by money because now we can be paid wages for labor, instead of having ownership over fruits of labor to be bartered for other people’s fruits of labor. Why should traditional labor-fruit be superior to wages?
Man, by own wickedness, can lose his freedom (slavery), but noone else has right to make him a slave. So criminals can be penalized by slavery, but their children should not be slaves. Locke was shareholder in African Slave Company though.
It is through reason that we can know God’s will. All men are equal, and can use reason as the judge of what God wills, instead of divine mouthpieces and royalty. If indeed you are God’s agent, there must be a reasonable way to differentiate you from someone who isn’t.
State of nature: Hobbes - man descends into animosity/antisociality without political authority. Locke - rights/duties of man as creatures of god, to live by laws of nature.
Then political authority is simply group of people coming together to agree on certain principles, and then delegating that authority such that ordinary people don’t have to deal with it everyday. It is someone’s profession. But paritality is part of human condition, so power becomes partial and coercive.
Civil society consents on authority. Conqueror to conquered is not political authority, it is concealed war.
Express consent: full rights/membership of society. Tacit consent: live in borders, have rights, but not membership.
Taxation without representation, right of people to resist ruler who abused power, 100 years later used by American revolutionaries, but Locke himself also tempered this with idea that cold constitutional law was inferior to human good intention and right of ruler of legitimate authority to break law for public good.
Reason is slave to passions, only serving to rationalize our desires. You’ve already made your choice Neo, you’re trying to understand why you made it.
Free Will: Without moral agency, all that is ugly about man is God’s doing. Reason not only helps us understand choices, it also helps us remember them, such that every time we’re a slave to our passions, we have a template and record that acts as a moderator. What if it is this act of moderation, this filter, that is the source of moral agency and free will? Free will thus needs to be exercised and practiced, it isn’t a state of being, it is an action. A skill.
We can only know about nature how it appears. Unlike moral thought that guides action, where you are simply evaluating an idea, without external sense-data. So we can have clarity about moral issues that we would lack with nature.
Notes
Labour is what distinguishes what is privately owned from what is held in common; the labour of a man’s body and the work of his hands. Labour is the unquestionable property of the labourer; and by mixing his labour with material objects – hunting (II 30), gathering (II 28), but also cultivating the ground (II 32–4) – a man acquires the right to what he has worked on and to what he has made of this material.
The industrious and rational are obliged to make good use of it. It is not simply theirs, to do with precisely as they fancy. They are its stewards and must display their stewardship in their industry as well as in their rationality.
Like any other man who has used the force of war to enforce his ends unjustly upon another, a tyrant has revolted from his own kind ‘to that of Beasts by making Force which is theirs, to be his rule of right’. In doing so he has rendered himself ‘liable to be destroied by the injur’d person and the rest of mankind, that will joyn with him in the execution of Justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute with whom Mankind can have neither Society nor Security’
Revolution for Locke is not an act of revenge; it is an act of restoration, of the re-creation of a violated political order.
the question of how exactly men could know what the law was. Four possible ways of knowing are outlined: inscription, tradition, sense-experience, and supernatural, or divine, revelation.
I am apt to think, that Men, when they come to examine them, find their simple Ideas all generally to agree, though in discourse with one another, they perhaps confound one another with different Names. I imagine, that Men who abstract their Thoughts, and do well examine the Ideas of their own Minds, cannot much differ in thinking.
We are seldom at our ease, and free enough from the sollicitation of our natural or adopted desires, but a constant succession of uneasinesses out of that stock, which natural wants, or acquired habits have heaped up, take the will in their turns; and no sooner is one action dispatch’d, which by such a determination of the will we are set upon, but another uneasiness is ready to set us on work.
Any true general conclusions at which they arrive apply only in so far as other particular relations in nature, or in the thought of other men, correspond to them (680–1). Ideas themselves are all either simple or complex. If simple, they derive directly from the senses (310–12), the inlets of knowledge. If complex, they are formed by the voluntary mental union (163) of simple ideas.
Men have three principal types of knowledge: intuitive, demonstrative, and sensitive. (The status of memory is a little unclear.) Of these, intuition is the most certain because it is the least avoidable. God’s knowledge is intuitive. He sees everything at once and hence has no need, as men do, to reason (M 52). The main truth which men know intuitively is their own existence:
Extreme mental and verbal self-consciousness is required for men to secure the fullest control of the conduct of their own understandings. Systematic scientific research and philosophical discourse are the public and practical expressions of a form of mental care and responsibility that all men, within the limits of their social opportunities, have the duty to undertake.
Man has divine right to personal property: Locke felt no real distinction between property by sweat of labor, or by inheritance, but for popular appeal he made property linked solely to the fruits of labor, and how we have right over our labor.
Labor theory of property is complicated by money because now we can be paid wages for labor, instead of having ownership over fruits of labor to be bartered for other people’s fruits of labor. Why should traditional labor-fruit be superior to wages?
Man, by own wickedness, can lose his freedom (slavery), but noone else has right to make him a slave. So criminals can be penalized by slavery, but their children should not be slaves. Locke was shareholder in African Slave Company though.
It is through reason that we can know God’s will. All men are equal, and can use reason as the judge of what God wills, instead of divine mouthpieces and royalty. If indeed you are God’s agent, there must be a reasonable way to differentiate you from someone who isn’t.
State of nature: Hobbes - man descends into animosity/antisociality without political authority. Locke - rights/duties of man as creatures of god, to live by laws of nature.
Then political authority is simply group of people coming together to agree on certain principles, and then delegating that authority such that ordinary people don’t have to deal with it everyday. It is someone’s profession. But paritality is part of human condition, so power becomes partial and coercive.
Civil society consents on authority. Conqueror to conquered is not political authority, it is concealed war.
Express consent: full rights/membership of society. Tacit consent: live in borders, have rights, but not membership.
Taxation without representation, right of people to resist ruler who abused power, 100 years later used by American revolutionaries, but Locke himself also tempered this with idea that cold constitutional law was inferior to human good intention and right of ruler of legitimate authority to break law for public good.
Reason is slave to passions, only serving to rationalize our desires. You’ve already made your choice Neo, you’re trying to understand why you made it.
Free Will: Without moral agency, all that is ugly about man is God’s doing. Reason not only helps us understand choices, it also helps us remember them, such that every time we’re a slave to our passions, we have a template and record that acts as a moderator. What if it is this act of moderation, this filter, that is the source of moral agency and free will? Free will thus needs to be exercised and practiced, it isn’t a state of being, it is an action. A skill.
We can only know about nature how it appears. Unlike moral thought that guides action, where you are simply evaluating an idea, without external sense-data. So we can have clarity about moral issues that we would lack with nature.
June 14, 2017
ترجمة مؤسسة هنداوي نزلت ..
April 12, 2018
شعرت بالعشوائية في عرض أفكار وفلسفة جون لوك في هذا الكتاب، ولكنه مقدمة لا بأس بها للقراءة في فلسفة لوك.
March 27, 2023
John Locke (1632 - 1704) was influential in the political thought of the founding fathers of the United States. He lived amid the strife of 17th century Britain during which a king was executed and civil war was fought between the advocates of monarchy and those of parliament. Morality was anchored in Christianity, but how to practice Christianity was endlessly in dispute. The people longed for stability and order and Locke sought a solid foundation for it by establishing what could be known with certainty with a plan for living based on it.
Locke was at first an advocate of absolute authority by a sovereign, seen to be God's agent on earth, whose rule could not be questioned, the only exception being a prohibition on his authority over the personal belief of each Christian; each individual having the right to work toward his own salvation not subject to the dictates of any other.
An opposite view was that all of creation, humanity included, was the property of God, who had made Adam the first authority, with it being passed down through rulers to the present. What God wanted and what the king wanted were the same, the land and people royal property over which the ruler had the right to take the property and lives of those he ruled.
Denying this, Locke believed all men in their most basic natural state were equal in their personhood, which came before the differentiation of personality and physical appearance. No person could be the property of another (slavery overlooked) and land became the property of the one who gave it value by working it (monetary wealth overlooked). Jefferson famously followed Locke in the belief in the equality of all men and their right to life, liberty and (originally) the pursuit of property.
At the root of his philosophy was Locke's conviction that there was a just and perfect God who cared for humanity and wanted each individual to conform to His plan. Earthly justice had a model in divine justice with unavoidable accountability to God upon death when it would be clearly seen if the rights given had been used responsibly.
As absolute trust in God was possible, so should trust be extended to rulers with the recognition that rulers were just as human as those they ruled and so could betray that trust. If a ruler could not maintain the order necessary for a society to function, it was the right of the ruled to revolt and replace him with someone else, re-establishing order as it had been known. The French Revolution appeared to show what could happen when a revolution occurred with no intention of returning to an old order, chaos resulting.
All of Locke's philosophy depended on several assumptions. The most basic was that God exists. Human beings must have free will allowing them to follow God's intent, ignore it or even act against it. Without free will, no one could be held responsible for his actions, bringing the idea of justice into question. Morality must be based on a standard of behavior given by God. If not, then behavior is determined solely by individual desire.
Not surprisingly, an atheist was beyond the pale, not entitled to any rights like all Christians. In Locke's words an atheist is "a noxious beast incapable of all society." Today, 320 years after Locke's death, with atheism growing in popularity, only 60% of polled Americans would vote for an atheist for president.
Locke's thinking was a milepost on the way to modernity and certainly set the stage for American democracy. He had reached the point of believing that reason could take a person beyond blind acceptance of revelation. It was a further advance from Martin Luther's earlier idea that scripture was open to all and not the preserve of the clergy. But Locke remained transfixed by mythology in his belief that there could not be morality and order without an invisible deity anchoring it. This caused him some difficulty in his effort to get reason and myth to be allies.
John Dunn makes the ideas of John Locke quite clear, pointing out where his thinking was groundbreaking and where it could not quite make it to his conclusions. We can certainly thank Locke for breaking the assumed link of human rulers to divine authority.
Key quote by John Dunn: What Locke hoped to show men was that a rational understanding of man's place in nature required them to live like Christians. But what he in fact showed was that a rational understanding of their place in nature did not, and does not, require men to live in any particular fashion
Locke was at first an advocate of absolute authority by a sovereign, seen to be God's agent on earth, whose rule could not be questioned, the only exception being a prohibition on his authority over the personal belief of each Christian; each individual having the right to work toward his own salvation not subject to the dictates of any other.
An opposite view was that all of creation, humanity included, was the property of God, who had made Adam the first authority, with it being passed down through rulers to the present. What God wanted and what the king wanted were the same, the land and people royal property over which the ruler had the right to take the property and lives of those he ruled.
Denying this, Locke believed all men in their most basic natural state were equal in their personhood, which came before the differentiation of personality and physical appearance. No person could be the property of another (slavery overlooked) and land became the property of the one who gave it value by working it (monetary wealth overlooked). Jefferson famously followed Locke in the belief in the equality of all men and their right to life, liberty and (originally) the pursuit of property.
At the root of his philosophy was Locke's conviction that there was a just and perfect God who cared for humanity and wanted each individual to conform to His plan. Earthly justice had a model in divine justice with unavoidable accountability to God upon death when it would be clearly seen if the rights given had been used responsibly.
As absolute trust in God was possible, so should trust be extended to rulers with the recognition that rulers were just as human as those they ruled and so could betray that trust. If a ruler could not maintain the order necessary for a society to function, it was the right of the ruled to revolt and replace him with someone else, re-establishing order as it had been known. The French Revolution appeared to show what could happen when a revolution occurred with no intention of returning to an old order, chaos resulting.
All of Locke's philosophy depended on several assumptions. The most basic was that God exists. Human beings must have free will allowing them to follow God's intent, ignore it or even act against it. Without free will, no one could be held responsible for his actions, bringing the idea of justice into question. Morality must be based on a standard of behavior given by God. If not, then behavior is determined solely by individual desire.
Not surprisingly, an atheist was beyond the pale, not entitled to any rights like all Christians. In Locke's words an atheist is "a noxious beast incapable of all society." Today, 320 years after Locke's death, with atheism growing in popularity, only 60% of polled Americans would vote for an atheist for president.
Locke's thinking was a milepost on the way to modernity and certainly set the stage for American democracy. He had reached the point of believing that reason could take a person beyond blind acceptance of revelation. It was a further advance from Martin Luther's earlier idea that scripture was open to all and not the preserve of the clergy. But Locke remained transfixed by mythology in his belief that there could not be morality and order without an invisible deity anchoring it. This caused him some difficulty in his effort to get reason and myth to be allies.
John Dunn makes the ideas of John Locke quite clear, pointing out where his thinking was groundbreaking and where it could not quite make it to his conclusions. We can certainly thank Locke for breaking the assumed link of human rulers to divine authority.
Key quote by John Dunn: What Locke hoped to show men was that a rational understanding of man's place in nature required them to live like Christians. But what he in fact showed was that a rational understanding of their place in nature did not, and does not, require men to live in any particular fashion
December 22, 2020
Interesting enough.
One can't really talk about politics in a modern liberal democracy without using the Lockean idiom. His definition of the limits of government and human rights have had far-reaching consequences for our nation-states. His concentration of value-judgements in the subject paved the way for modern individualism.
His epistemology is interesting, albeit mostly historically; as a refreshing tool to demystify the doctrine of innate ideas and scholasticism and pretty much all human-drawn 'lines on reality' which fool us into thinking that our concept actually exists.
His drawing of strict limits of human knowledge is thus notable: No general truths about nature can be known; and therefore there can in the strict sense be no science of nature.
Men are entirely correct to believe that they know their simple ideas of sensation and reflection to match reality, the way the world is, and the way they are themselves. But when they attempt to understand themselves and nature, the complex ideas which they fashion in their minds out of these simple materials cannot be known to match reality. Instead, what human beings are compelled to do is to judge whether reality matches their own complex ideas. If they judge attentively and prudently this will serve very adequately for all practical purposes.
His Christianity can get rather tedious, however.
Overall rather good.
One can't really talk about politics in a modern liberal democracy without using the Lockean idiom. His definition of the limits of government and human rights have had far-reaching consequences for our nation-states. His concentration of value-judgements in the subject paved the way for modern individualism.
His epistemology is interesting, albeit mostly historically; as a refreshing tool to demystify the doctrine of innate ideas and scholasticism and pretty much all human-drawn 'lines on reality' which fool us into thinking that our concept actually exists.
His drawing of strict limits of human knowledge is thus notable: No general truths about nature can be known; and therefore there can in the strict sense be no science of nature.
Men are entirely correct to believe that they know their simple ideas of sensation and reflection to match reality, the way the world is, and the way they are themselves. But when they attempt to understand themselves and nature, the complex ideas which they fashion in their minds out of these simple materials cannot be known to match reality. Instead, what human beings are compelled to do is to judge whether reality matches their own complex ideas. If they judge attentively and prudently this will serve very adequately for all practical purposes.
His Christianity can get rather tedious, however.
Overall rather good.
August 19, 2025
How is it that man can know anything? How should they live?
“John Locke, one of the greatest English philosophers of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, argued in his masterpiece, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that our knowledge is founded in experience and reaches us principally through our senses; but its message has been curiously misunderstood. In this book John Dunn shows how Locke arrived at his theory of knowledge, and how his exposition of the liberal values of toleration and responsible government formed the backbone of enlightened European thought of the eighteenth century.”
“To protect human entitlements is the purpose of government. Government, then, exists to secure to all human beings their lives, their liberties and their material possessions. Every human being is certainly entitled to his own life and his own liberty, unless he forfeits these by violent assaults upon the lives and liberties of others. Entitlement to material possessions, however, was a more delicate matter. Material possessions which were a direct product of a man's labour were truly his…”
“John Locke, one of the greatest English philosophers of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, argued in his masterpiece, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that our knowledge is founded in experience and reaches us principally through our senses; but its message has been curiously misunderstood. In this book John Dunn shows how Locke arrived at his theory of knowledge, and how his exposition of the liberal values of toleration and responsible government formed the backbone of enlightened European thought of the eighteenth century.”
“To protect human entitlements is the purpose of government. Government, then, exists to secure to all human beings their lives, their liberties and their material possessions. Every human being is certainly entitled to his own life and his own liberty, unless he forfeits these by violent assaults upon the lives and liberties of others. Entitlement to material possessions, however, was a more delicate matter. Material possessions which were a direct product of a man's labour were truly his…”
April 24, 2019
رجاحة فكر لوك وطريقته تقيمه للعلوم الطبيعية والسياسة والمعرفة بشكلٍ عام تجعل اَي شخص يعجب بهذا الرجل ، إن جرّأته الغير متناهية وحبه في البحث عن الحقيقة التي يراها تستحق ان يكرس المرء الوقت والعمر لاجلها تجعل منه شخصية التنوير الحديث عن جدارة ، يستحق ان يُقال عنه أب اللليبرالية .
سأحرص على قراءة رسالة في الفهم البشري فالقسم الذي تحدث عن هذا الكتاب أثارني وشدني للبحث والاطلاع اكتر على فكر لوك في هذا الشأن بالاضافة لرسالتان في الحكم وموضوع الثقة المثير للجدل وللاعجاب .
الكتاب يحتاج للكثير من التركيز والعناية اثناء القراءة وخاصة في فصله الثالث .
سأحرص على قراءة رسالة في الفهم البشري فالقسم الذي تحدث عن هذا الكتاب أثارني وشدني للبحث والاطلاع اكتر على فكر لوك في هذا الشأن بالاضافة لرسالتان في الحكم وموضوع الثقة المثير للجدل وللاعجاب .
الكتاب يحتاج للكثير من التركيز والعناية اثناء القراءة وخاصة في فصله الثالث .
July 29, 2025
Locke’s central conviction that TRUTH is worth pursuing, his moral clarity, and his intellectual bravery in a fraught England makes him an admirable model for any young thinker. While typically a fan of the VSI series, Dunn’s skepticism and obtuse writing style made this short-read take longer than it should have. In fairness to Dunn, the extent to which I understand the broader historical debates in philosophy remains in its infancy so this may not be his fault entirely.
December 5, 2025
Good brief overview of Locke; however, I have to admit I don’t find Locke that interesting. I personally prefer Hobbes and Rousseau—even though, ironically, Locke arguably has the best politics of the three. Even for a traditional “liberal” philosopher, though, I think Locke is upstaged by Mill, whose works (especially On Liberty) are more worth reading and thinking through today.
April 21, 2019
Confusing layout, but good overall
December 3, 2022
الفصل الثالث "المعرفة والاعتقاد والإيمان" هو أجمل ما في المقدمة ، مقدمة قصيرة جميلة جدً.
Read
November 13, 2024洛克作品的时代性和跨时代性；神学观点作为钥匙
November 8, 2025
ترجمة سيئة جدا
February 22, 2025
The political theorist John Dunn is a professor at the University of Cambridge in England. John Dunn wrote John Locke: A Very Short Introduction. I read the edition that was published in 2003. The book has illustrations. The book has sections of references. The book has an index. The book has a section called “further reading” (Dunn 101-106). The first chapter is a biography of Locke. The second chapter is about Locke’s philosophy about political philosophy (Dunn 27-65). Dunn writes, “At the center of Locke’s conception of government was the idea of trust. Government was a relation between men [humans], between creatures all of whom were capable of deserving trust and any of whom could and sometimes would betray it” (Dunn 58). The third chapter is on Locke’s philosophy about “knowledge, belief, and faith” (Dunn 66-94). Dunn writes, “The Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (Dunn 69-72) illustrates the picture of the scope and limits of human understanding” (Dunn 67). Dunn wrote the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which Locke viewed “as his masterpiece, and it has been this that has marked the imagination of posterity” (Dunn 67). Dunn wrote a conclusion that summarizes his ideas about Locke. Dunn’s book is similar to the biography of Lincoln by Allen C. Guelzo, except for the first chapter. The book is about Locke’s ideas (Guelzo 8). Dunn’s Introduction to the Philosophy of John Locke is a well-done book.
Works Cited:
Guelzo, Allen C. 2009. Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Kindle.
Morrill, John. 2000. Stuart Britain: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Kindle.
Works Cited:
Guelzo, Allen C. 2009. Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Kindle.
Morrill, John. 2000. Stuart Britain: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Kindle.
March 29, 2016
John Locke's two most important works - the Two Treatises of Government and the Essay Concerning Human Understanding - seem, on the face of it, to deal with two different subjects, respectively, politics and epistemology. But one of the most fascinating things that this dense and erudite book reveals is that they are really just separate ways of answering one question. Locke does not ask, 'How can we know things?' and then, 'What should we do?', but rather, 'How can we know what we should do?' His response, Professor Dunn clearly explains, is a basically Christian one. God is not an incidental add-on to what he believes, one which the Enlightenment later felt able to dispose of, but rather fundamental to how he believed individuals could know anything at all. Dunn thinks that his philosophical enterprise was therefore something of a failure, in that it created a direct line from the puritanism that Locke had left behind to a liberalism that would have shocked him. I suppose the only plausible next step is to read Locke himself and see what he actually thought.
Chapter 1: Life
Chapter 2: The politics of trust
Chapter 3: Knowledge, belief, and faith
Chapter 1: Life
Chapter 2: The politics of trust
Chapter 3: Knowledge, belief, and faith
September 12, 2015
In spite of the its title, it's quite a non-brief comprehensive look at Locke, John Dunn walks through all aspects of Locke’s life and works with such a calm and thorough manner which makes you think how simple is the whole thing.
While most of the first part on Locke’s political view seems to be historical, I personally found the second part in which Dunn deals with Lock’s theory about Knowledge, belief and faith, still relevant and thought-provoking. Although one has to accept that Locke’s reliance on God to fill the many gaps in his theory is not acceptable anymore.
I certainly intend to read more not only about Locke but also from this beautiful series of “A very short introduction”.
While most of the first part on Locke’s political view seems to be historical, I personally found the second part in which Dunn deals with Lock’s theory about Knowledge, belief and faith, still relevant and thought-provoking. Although one has to accept that Locke’s reliance on God to fill the many gaps in his theory is not acceptable anymore.
I certainly intend to read more not only about Locke but also from this beautiful series of “A very short introduction”.
September 6, 2020
Dunn thoroughly explains and analyzes Locke’s philosophy as explicated in Locke’s major works in a few short pages. Dunn, in the end, highlights the great failure Locke’s epistemological project, but he also affirms Locke as an example of intellectual courage. He was a man who believed in truth and thought it worth the seeking. That’s not such a horrible note on which to end 2017.
November 29, 2015
The book is more of a historical background to Locke's political works, rather than a discussion of its themes and philosophy.
Dunn's writing style is very unclear. His paragraphs are longwinded, and oftentimes, difficult to interpret.
Dunn's writing style is very unclear. His paragraphs are longwinded, and oftentimes, difficult to interpret.
Read
September 23, 2010Locke: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) by John Dunn (2003)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews