Talk:John Locke/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Epistemology

It seems to me that what this article most urgently needs is a section on Locke's epistemology. Along with Hume Locke is the most influential empiricist in the history of philosophy and as such one of the most influential early modern philosophers. There ought to be a section explaining his theory as set forth in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. --140.180.21.96 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, it is baffling that nearly five years later no one has added a section on epistemology in this article. Locke is one of the most important philosophers on epistemology in history. The article mentions his importance in the field but does not discuss his theories on epistemology at all. This is inexcusable. This should be a priority for WikiProject Philosophy. and Modern Philosophy Task Force ProfGiles (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

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

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

Edit request on 30 September 2012

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

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the article has suffered from persistent vandalism, so it is semi-protected. You can either request specific changes now or wait until your account is autoconfirmed and make the changes yourself. If there's a simple, uncontroversial change you'd like to propose, I'll be happy to consider it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence fragment doesn't make sense to me: "Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.228.222 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

I removed this section because it contains WP:SYNTH and some very strong claims that are only cited by a single relative obscure source (an older German church history). Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and the claim that Locke (with Milton(?)) was the major influence regarding the development of modern democracry, republicanism and human rights, via Lafayette, employing an elaborate WP:SYNTH construction, is indeed very exceptional and are not supported by other specialists on the subjects like Lynn Hunt, Mogens Herman Hansen and Jonathan Israel. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Political theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seems to be a pretty strong assumption by the above editor that Locke's religious convictions were formalistic, not sincere, leading to editorializing his own opinions regarding Locke's "problematic" logic. RJC even treats Waldron sceptically despite presenting him as the last major contributor on Locke's religious views. However, he is not. There are still a variety of scholarly views on this matter, and in particular I would recommend the article by Fania Oz-Salzberger cited below under the heading "Political Hebraism." She reviews the debate, and differs from Waldron while still taking Locke's religious beliefs seriously.122.107.228.214 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Why is there no section on Locke's contributions to metaphysics and epistemology? Those ideas are at least as important, and far more sophisticated than his political writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.157.53 (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Influence

I don't think the first line of influence isn't very clear. It reads "Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism."

This says that he used to have a huge influence on modern liberalism. I think it's talking about liberalism in Locke's time, but I'm not sure. Kude90 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

Alliewashere05 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC) he was born in sumerset

The article already says this. Is there something specific you want changed? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Political Hebraism

The section on "Religious Beliefs" needs revision to take account of current scholarship relating to the influence of not just Biblical but also Rabbinic and later Jewish thought on John Locke. In this Locke reflected the wider Protestant "return to the sources" that swept many European countries from the late 16th through to the 18th centuries, seeking new models in the Scriptures to replace the overthrown Catholic ones. During the 17th century in particular, literally hundreds of works on the Continent and in England were published by Protestant thinkers drawing particularly upon Hebrew Scripture and the newly available Talmudic and later Jewish writings to formulate their own divinely guided commonwealths; many of these works had the terms "the Hebrew Republic" in their title or sub-title. As Eric Nelson puts it in the "Introduction" to his The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and The Transformation of European Political Thought (Harvard University Press, 2010), p. 3, they "began to regard the Hebrew Bible as a political constitution designed by God himself for the children of Israel ... (and) the writings of later Rabbinic materials as authoritative guides to the institutions and practices of this perfect republic." Political Hebraism, as it has been called, framed political discourse for generations, especially in The Netherlands and Britain, and through the latter, in the American colonies, where it significantly shaped the ideological and political formation of the United States itself. Parliamentary democracy itself, it turns out, had its roots in Biblical religion and politics, as construed in the 17th century. This applies also to the justifications offered then for religious tolerance as such. On this subject, religious tolerance, the article here on Locke is particularly misleading. The justification for it, Nelson argues in his Chapter 3 ("Hebrew Theocracy and the Rise of Toleration") does not arise historically from the call to separate church and state, but rather through the call for the Erastian unification of church and state under civil authority, as argued for by thinkers of this period on the basis of Biblical precedents. John Locke's own formulations reflect that background, despite his modified application of it. The article associates tolerance with the "natural law" theories of Grotius, Pufendorf, Selden, Milton and others. As the article suggests, "natural law" for these thinkers did not mean what it did for anti-religious thinkers, that basic norms arose simply out of reason and from nature as such, but rather signified what God had commanded as basic norms for all humanity, from their creation onwards, in accordance with ethical monotheism. These divinely revealed norms originated, according to Grotius, Pufendorf, Selden, Milton and Locke, from the Biblical covenants entered into first by Adam and Eve, then with some elaboration by Noah (see Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace [2005 ed.], vol. 1, Book 1, pp. 58-9, 68, and Genesis 9 itself which as explicated by the Rabbis required elementary acknowledgement of God and basic laws of justice and mercy, regardless of cultural diversities), and from the laws in the Mosaic books relating to "resident aliens" (which themselves reflected the Noahite Covenant idea): resident aliens could retain their own views and were not forced to become Jews in the Jewish polity, but were treated entirely equally in civil law matters. (Indeed, Jews were commanded in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy to love them as themselves.) Adherence to the Noahite Covenant according to the Biblical and Rabbinic tradition was sufficient to assure salvation, no matter what one's nominal religion (even including the polytheism of Nineveh, as we see in the Book of Jonah). Therefore it was unnecessary to enforce a single religious outlook in society. So the reference to Biblical texts drawn upon by Locke should certainly include Genesis 9, relating to the Noahite Covenant, and such passages dealing with the equal and even expressly loving treatment of non-Jews resident in the land as Exod. 12:49, Lev. 17:8-10, 19:33-34, 24:22; Num. 9:14, 15:14-16; Deut. 10:18-19, etc. Locke pointed to these teachings concerning "resident aliens" as the legitimation for his theory of tolerance of religious diversity within the state. See, in addition to the excellent overview by Eric Nelson (with footnote and bibliographic references to the wider literature on the Biblical influence on John Locke), the discussion by Fania Oz-Salzberger, "The Political Thought of John Locke and the Significance of Political Hebraism: Then and Now," in Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought, eds. Gordon Schochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger, and Meirav Jones (Shalem Press, 2008), pp. 231-256.122.107.228.214 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "political Hebraism" hasn't caught on outside of the circle that published in the short-lived Hebraic Political Thought. Was Locke familiar with the Hebrew Bible? Yes. Does this link him with those who looked to Rabbinic thought in an effort to recover the Bible from Catholic interpretations? No. Should we mention that (some scholars) think that the ancient Israelite polity had religious toleration in the context of Locke's advocacy of religious toleration when he does not draw any such connection? No, per the rule against ascribing undue weight to idiosyncratic research. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing passe about the terms "Political Hebraism," contrary to the claim just above. Nor is the research "idiosyncratic": consult the footnotes to the cited article by Oz-Salzberger, or the very lengthy bibliography to Nelson's book (itself published by Harvard UP), cited above. Scholars involved publish works in leading academic journals and their books are issued by the most respectable university presses, including Harvard, Oxford, Yale and Cambridge, etc., while they themselves have positions at leading universities around the world. The attempt to discredit their scholarship is itself discreditable and unacceptable, and shows prejudice. Nor is it true that it is incontrovertible that there were no Rabbinic influences on Locke's thought: Locke, like others of his generation, was familiar with the writings of John Selden, the chief 17th century political thinker who influenced the shaping of the British parliamentary system under Cromwell, but Selden's works were presented by him himself frankly as a commentary on and explication of Rabbinic literature dealing with social and political issues, including the Noahite Covenant already mentioned, laws relating to "resident aliens," and much else besides: see Jason P. Rosenblatt, Renaissance England's Chief Rabbi John Selden (Oxford UP, 2006). Quite obviously, the editor just above has not read any of the works cited (and, from the tenor of the remarks, has no intention to do so, no matter how scholarly the documentation).122.107.228.214 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I assumed greater familiarity with WP's policies and guidelines when I wrote that. Sorry. The standard for inclusion of a point of view is not that some respectable scholars hold it. Instead, we try to present what the scholarly consensus is. When there is no such consensus, we try to maintain a neutral point of view. We do not present all views equally, however, and some views are to be excluded entirely. WP:UNDUE is a different policy from WP:FRINGE, and in suggesting that it would be awarding undue weight to the views of those who suggest that there is a thing called "political hebraism" to include those views in the article, I didn't mean to say only no-name hermits work on the idea. The number of scholars who speak of political hebraism is rather small. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my grasp of WP policies. That is a red herring. As is the claim of undue weight being given to a view that in fact is excluded entirely despite the considerable scholarly literature about it. The views regarding Hebraic and even Rabbinic influences on Locke's thought should be mentioned, at least, since highly reputable scholars have developed the case for this: this is not "undue weight," but reflects precisely the "neutrality" and NPOV that is invoked here. That NPOV actually requires fair expression of these views as part of respectable scholarship on Locke. As for the "mainstream" view, it is hard to find, since there is currently quite a considerable range of scholarly opinion about the role of religious sources on Locke's thought, with some like Leo Strauss arguing that he was a secret secularist, while others, probably now the mainstream in fact, accepting that he was not a secularist but sincerely argued from Protestant premises (e.g., John Dunn, Jeremy Waldron, Kim Ian Parker, etc.). Another red herring is making the terminology of "political Hebraism" itself the chief issue. The number of scholars using the terminology in any case is not small, RJC, that is incorrect. It is found now in the text, and even the title or sub-titles, of many books and scholarly articles. In terms of this article, however, the subject remains the actual sources Locke relied on, a matter of fact not opinion nor terminology. Therefore it is in place to note in the article that Locke read John Seldon, Thomas Hobbes and others who discussed at great length not just the Hebrew Scriptural sources but also Rabbinic traditions about them relating to society and politics, and he was definitely influenced by these readings.122.107.228.214 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Sigmund's Norton Critical Edition on Locke, which includes a variety perspectives, has nothing on the rabbinic influence on Locke. It does include the other viewpoints you mention. This is because of the level of support that those viewpoints enjoy beyond the circle of researchers advancing them. This is not a matter of which press published the book supporting the research or what university the author teaches at, but the impact that research has had. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 11:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Locke was influenced by Selden, Hobbes, Grotius, possibly John Milton, and others who themselves referred to Rabbinic sources to buttress their ideas. Not everyone drawing from Biblical and Rabbinic sources had direct knowledge of them in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, even though Hebrew itself was taught fairly widely at that time, but in any case they relied in their writings on those who had direct access to the sources, most especially on John Selden and Hugo Grotius. Both of these authorities filled their voluminous writings with citations, and in Selden's case in particular, extended quotations page up, page down, of the original Aramaic and Hebrew, from the Talmud and the later Rabbinic commentators and thinkers, such as Rashi, Maimonides, Abravanel, and many others. This is not a matter of later scholarly debate: it is a fact on the face of it, known to anyone who reads their books. Moreover, this citation was central to their argumentation and thinking, not peripheral but crucial. This naturally means that anyone influenced by Selden and Grotius, etc., was ipso facto influenced by Rabbinic thinking and thinkers. Both Grotius and Selden were major influences on political thinking in their own and subsequent generations, and in particular had enormous influence on Locke's thought. Sigmund himself acknowledges the importance of these thinkers for Locke's thought in the Critical Edition RJC cites. Sigmund's book came out in 2005 and reflects work before that date. Most of the works I have cited above have been published since then. Sigmund, should he issue a second edition, would certainly mention them as illuminating the background to Locke's use of Selden, Grotius, Hobbes, etc., since the fact of the Rabbinic sources cited in their works is not a matter for debate at all. Case closed. But, one may ask, how can it be, if the Hebrew and Aramaic sources are crucial to their thought, and are manifestly quoted at length on page after page in Seldon, Grotius, et al, that this Rabbinic strand in their thought and influence on later political thought has not been remarked on more widely before the past decade (although it turns out that there have been plenty of scholars in past decades who have discussed it)? We need not wonder at this preference to ignore this as an irrelevancy and marginal idiosyncracy. It is evident on this page, after all. 122.107.228.214 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have proven that what you consider to be the correct answer does not enjoy the support of the scholarly community. It is the support that is important, not whether that the lack of that support is semi-literate. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In your dreams, RJC. I have not "proven" that at all. Read what I actually wrote, giving plenty of evidence of recent scholarship of the highest standard, and pointing out that it is based, as for example the voluminous bibliographic and footnote apparatus of Nelson's book shows, on scholarship of past decades too. It seems that your tendency not to read what was written extends beyond me to those works, too. Let me underline this, since evidently it needs to be spelled out again, and perhaps it was not sufficiently clarified in my earlier remarks: the evidence of Hebraic learning and citation as being of central importance within mainstream Protestant and even to a much lesser degree Catholic thought (e.g., Jean Bodin, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Pierre Bayle) from the 16th through to the 18th centuries is now very well established and recognized by historians specializing in that period. There is nothing novel or "idiosyncratic" about stating this. What is novel about the recent rediscovery of "political Hebraism" as a central thread in Protestant political thought is that the role of Rabbinic thought. already cited and presented in the original sources, is now also frankly recognized, as part of a wider recovery of religious liberal thought that had been obscured and effectively written out of existence by the subsequent dominance of militantly anti-religious forms of secular modernity from the late 18th to the late 20th centuries. Thus it became usual to bypass as irrelevant the second half of Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise because both were filled with Biblical discussion of precedents, citations (and Rabbinic derived interpretations as well). Many students of philosophy did not even know of these sections of Hobbes' and Locke's work, as a result, and the similar references in American political writing up to and after the establishment of the United States were also ignored. The hundred or more Christian books and pamphlets exploring new ways of structuring a godly commonwealth during the 16th and 17th centuries which had as their title or sub-title "The Hebrew Republic" effectively disappeared from view as if they never were. We may call it the post-facto triumph of the French Revolution, Voltaire and Rousseau over the English and American Revolutions and Selden, Milton, Harrington and Locke, not to mention those influenced by them in America. It led to a thorough rewriting of the history of Western thought and the understanding of democracy and modernity itself. That is now being brought into question, quite properly.

Tell you what, since you are so allergic to any suggestion of Rabbinic influence (and that will inevitably come in later versions of this article anyway), maybe for now you can simply add a brief reference in Section 3 of the article on "Religious Beliefs" to Fania Oz-Salzberger's article on the Hebraic elements in Locke's thought, along with a further reference to Nelson's treatment of the Hebraic roots Locke tried to demonstrate for his conception of tolerance, explicitly and forthrightly modelling it on the Hebrew Commonwealth treatment of "resident aliens," in fact, in his 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration (Nelson, op.cit., p. 135, quoting extensively from the Ian Shapiro 2003 edition of Locke's Two Treatises of Government and A letter Concerning Toleration, p. 240 et passim). Reading through this exchange again, I see that RJC states in his first response that there is no evidence that John Locke relied on Biblical precedents for his views concerning tolerance in the state (and therefore it is "Undue weight" to ascribe such influence to him). This is simply incorrect. See Nelson's evidence, just mentioned above. The "Old Testament" references and justifications are explicit in the text (and reflect, in fact, Rabbinic explications of the Hebrew Scriptures, which Locke derived from Selden and Grotius amongst others). So, contrary to RJC, it is simply not true that "Undue Weight" is bestowed upon the subject when one mentions that Locke used Hebraic sources to arrive at his liberal views on tolerance. Locke emphasized these sources, in fact. Go back to the Letter, RJC, and please read it again. 122.107.228.214 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RJC seems to read very slowly, or has not gotten access to the relevant sources, so I will supply here the cited passage from Nelson, op.cit., p. 135: "To see this [i.e., the central and positive importance of the Israelite example for later liberal political thought, contrary to Spinoza's more anti-Biblical path], one need only look for a moment at the figure of John Locke. In his Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke follows his Hebraic Erastian predecessors in analyzing the religious law of the 'commonwealth of Israel.' Like Grotius and Selden (as well as the Arminian Simon Episcopius, whose works he read quite carefully), he stresses that the Hebrew republic practiced broad toleration, welcoming residents who did not obey the Mosaic law -- and even tolerating idolatry outside its borders:

"'Amongst so many captives taken, so many nations reduced under their obedience, we find not one man forced into the Jewish religion and the worship of the true God and punished for idolatry, though all of them were certainly guilty of it. If any one, indeed, becoming a proselyte, desired to be made a denizen of their commonwealth, he was obliged to submit to their laws; that is, to embrace their religion. But this he did willingly, on his own accord, not by constraint. He did not unwillingly submit, to show his obedience, but he sought and solicited for it as a privilege. And, as soon as he was admitted, he became subject to the laws of the commonwealth, by which all idolatry was forbidden within the borders of the land of Canaan. But that law (as I have said) did not reach to any of those regions, however subjected unto the Jews, that were situated without those bounds.'" [The footnote cites Locke's Letter Concerning toleration as presented in the Shapiro edition of 2003, p. 240.]

Nelson goes on to show how according to Locke these principles should influence contemporary political thinking, and discusses other aspects of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration from this perspective. So it is manifestly the case, contrary to assertions above, that these Biblical precedents regarding resident aliens were indeed explicitly cited as crucial justifications for and influences on Locke's conceptions of tolerance and political theory. It is not to ascribe "undue weight" to this to cite Locke's own emphasis on it in his Letter Concerning Toleration.122.107.228.214 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

/outdent/ Is that a quotation from Nelson, The Hebrew republic: Jewish sources and the transformation of European political thought? Google Scholar shows 33 citations to that book. The issue, again, is not the existence of reputable scholars who hold a given view. It is the impact those scholars have upon the field. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Again you skirt the issue, RJC: the point is that Locke himself cited the Biblical precedent of the laws regarding "resident aliens" to justify and ground in Scripture his own argument for toleration in religion. I showed this with a quote from Locke himself as given in Nelson's book (I made that clear, so it is not my own "original research" but already an acknowledged scholarly datum). Locke of course drew his view of the Biblical texts from his reading of Selden and Grotius, amongst others, who in turn based themselves on Rabbinic commentaries. Thus Locke's indebtedness to Rabbinic sources is demonstrated, which you had denied. But we will let that go for now, as I wrote above. However, beyond that, you had claimed: "Should we mention that (some scholars) think that the ancient Israelite polity had religious toleration in the context of Locke's advocacy of religious toleration when he does not draw any such connection? No, per the rule against ascribing undue weight to idiosyncratic research." This is now demonstrated to have been false. Locke did draw the connection himself, and thus the claim of "ascribing undue weight to idiosyncratic research" is also unfounded. It is not a matter of what Nelson says. It is a matter of what Locke says, as Nelson rightly pointed out. It is a matter of fact, really not a matter of debate at all (or should not be, to any unbiased reader).122.107.228.214 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Typical

John Locke's attitude towards African slaves and the robbery of American Indian land was typical of the time. It was the fashion at the time and place to quote Biblical verses. Royalists did this, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming Error

In the section "The philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein argues that during his five years in Holland, Lock chose his friends" the name Locke is incorrectly spelled Lock. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.177.149 (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - now corrected. TFD (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

New Source In Pears Cyclopaedia 1989-1990, Ninety-eighth Edition, Category B-38 KrisCoyle (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you adding this source to an existing statement in the article? if so, which statement? Cannolis (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Contributions to Modern Political Theory

Add these suggestions under the Political Theory Section

Locke’s influence in political theory extends far beyond the times of the American Revolution. John Rawls, whom former president Bill Clinton has described as “perhaps the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century”¹ draws upon Locke’s ideas of social contract theory and self to formulate his own hypotheses. Locke’s idea of social contract theory is a pillar of Rawls’ argument in A Theory of Justice. Both this work and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, explore what life was like before government. Locke argues that before societies emerged, people existed in a state of nature. Rawls draws upon this idea to formulate his theory of original position. Under this theory, people develop governments by selecting what morals will structure the laws of society as well as a just distribution of resources. As a result, this theory relies heavily on Locke’s social contract theory, which posits that the consent of the people is necessary in order for a government or ruling body to have sovereignty. While Locke’s contributions shaped the foundation of modern liberalism, Rawls’ expansion on his ideas helped the theory re-emerge in the 20th century and remain pertinent in contemporary political philosophy.

You need to provide a specific request for change, which you have not done. What specific change to the wording of the article do you recommend? TFD (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Locke is the founder of Liberalism. Not "Classical Liberalism"

Please remove the word classical from Classical Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism came a hundred years later and is a corporate sellout of Liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Locke was the creator of Liberalism, not classical Liberalism, and I guess the ill begotten corporatism sellouts like to "claim" Locke as their father. But clearly Classical liberalism is NOT Locke liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.109.147 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the sources support the passage, so I will remove it. But I don't think he is regarded as the creator of liberalism, which in England can be traced to the Civil War. TFD (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Locke typically gets the most credit: see Zuckert, Michael P. Launching liberalism: On Lockean political philosophy (U press of Kansas, 2002) and Bramsted, and Melhuish. Western liberalism: a history in documents from Locke to Croce (Longman 1978.); D Wootton - 1993 writes: "John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (c. 1681) is perhaps the key founding liberal text." Rjensen (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Democracy

Would this article not be a suitable addition to the above category, given his acknowledged influence on modern Western style Democracy? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 

Why do some of his major posthumous works have dates before his death

Confusing - Rod57 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlink

"Labour theory of value" under "Theory of value and property" should redirect to Labor theory of value instead of Labour Economics 62.83.158.158 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Property as a social relation

Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour."

This needs a reference. And Locke does not use the term property to mean an object/possession that is owned. Property refers to relations between members of a social unit in reference to the use and disposal of things. It is a relation, not a thing. Private property, for example, is the denial of a relationship whereas collective property is a collective/social right, claim, entitlement to the use/disposal of goods and services. The philosophers of the Enlightenment used property in that sense i.e. relational, and not as a thing. "Property denotes not material things but certain rights...A property right is a relation not between an owner and a thing, but between the owner and other individuals in reference to things" (Morris Cohen, American jurist).

Moreover, the use of the concept of property as meaning things and as identical with PRIVATE property (property takes many form: collective, communal, state, individual private, corporate private, etc) can be traced back historically to the rise of market place society.  

And again, our dear editor, who has a mistaken notion of property as thing, misunderstands Locke and the meaning of property when he writes: "In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, Locke argues that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods or utilise property to produce goods beneficial to human society"

No, no, no. Locke writes about individual RIGHTS, CLAIMS, ENTITLEMENTS to the use and disposal of things, not 'ownership of goods and property.' Property is the same thing as right,claim,entitlement. You are effectively saying Locke advocates individual ownership of individual ownership. Individual ownership is a form of property (private). Collective ownership is another form of property (collective,communal,state). Locke, then is not advocating individual appropriation of things, he is advocating a private right to the use of something in reference to other individuals.

Private property refers to exclusive rights to possess, use and dispose of goods and services and is essentially a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived i.e., denial of the private property of others. Private property rights define "the rights of individuals (which may be corporate bodies) to use and benefit from natural resources (among other things) and to exclude other citizens of a state or of foreign states from access and use" (Marchak, 1988)

Locke during his stay in the Netherlands acquired and read treatises which were written by Socinian writers who introduced for the first time revolutionary ideas concerning freedom of conscience and separation of state and religion in the Christian world: Jan Krell (1590-1633) (Juni Bruti Poloni Vindiciae pro religionis libertate - Amsterdam 1637), Samuel Przypkowski (1592-1670) (Dissertatio de pace et concordia ecclesiae - Amsterdam 1628), (De iure Christiani magistratus et privatorum in belli pacisque negotiis- author developed a new concept of separation of state and religion - Amsterdam 1650), Jonasz Szlichtyng (1592-1661) (Confessio fidei Christianae - the Netherlands, 1642; Apologia pro veritate accusata ad illustrissimos et potentissimos Holande et West-Frisiae Ordines, conscripta ab Equite Plono - Amsterdam 1654), Jan Sachs (1641-1671) (De scopo reipublicae poloniae ... dissertatio - 1665). Locke had personal contact with the religious groups in Holland which were either Socinians or offshoots of their movment.

Source : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaporta (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice and Explanation of Templates

Something was brought to the attention of us helpers by a concerned editor in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. It appears that an author has appropriated text from Wikipedia without attribution, and has since copyrighted it. The content was added in 2007, and the book published in 2008. I haven't encountered this before, so I wasn't completely sure what to do. I've tagged the article to raise awareness for those who have this article on their watchlist (aside from writing this comment of course)- you'll find the appropriate Google Books url there. According to User:Hazard-SJ, another helper who did a bit of digging, it appears to be confined to Lines 36 - 61, but a more thorough check might be in order (consult revision diff=99690219). I'm assuming a rewrite is advisable, but any suggestions on how to deal with this would be helpful; as a I said, I've never encountered this specific issue before. I'll check back here, but feel free to ping me in your response. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Which book is it? Do you have the link to the entry at Google Books?– Gilliam (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone acting as though they can copyright Wikipedia text is not a problem for Wikipedia; it's a problem for the copyrighter if they try to enforce their claim. I'm removing the template; please restore it if there is an actual claim that Wikipedia has really plagiarized copyrighted material. Nareek (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit made on nov 16 2015

hi

someone please revert Margraveawsomin's edit. i can't do it as i'm not registered. has also removed cited sources saying hayek was an agnostic, and seemingly has little to contribute (but definitely has the desire to hide facts he seemingly finds inconvenient). this would be the third edit to be reverted, and i'm sure there are others that are worthy as well (one only has so much time to monitor these things). would argue the account should be reviewed.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.168.137 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency over Milton

In this article, Milton is described as "a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms". In the article on Milton, it is noted correctly that Milton called for freedom for Protestants only and wanted the suppression of the opinions of atheists, Jews, Moslems and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See John Milton in the section on Religious toleration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See John Milton#Views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.60 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I will delete the sentence. I cannot access the source, its from a 1962 text by a German expert on the history of Protestantism, not the most obvious source one would choose for this article. This article says that Locke was influenced by the Protestant tradition, but does not explain how. And of course few if any people support freedom in all its forms, just those forms that they consider legitimate. TFD (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

measuring locke's impact through influence in united states' "declaration of independence"

i am sorry,

after much thought i just do not find it acceptable to qualitative describe the great John Locke's impact through impact on the United States.

i am not saying that the united states didn't idolise him (they did, like the losers they are), i am just stating his work is much more than just influencing the united states.

can we start the discussion on how else to describe his impact? being canadian i find it hard to really explain just how influential his ideas were, prior to toronto's cokeheads going on a rampage with mitt, of course. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016

I would like to change the word "characterize" in this article because it is spelled wrong. The article spells it "characterise." The misspell can be found under the section "Political Theory" on the first line.

Klamath Bob (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, as characterised is spelled correctly. Locke was English, so this article is written in British English - Arjayay (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: the phrase "Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury" is wrong. It should be just Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. The usage Lord + Christian name + Surname is reserved to the younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.217.108 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding in John Locke on ideas and accompanying critique

On Ideas

The premise of Locke’s argument in his Essay of Human Understanding, where he examines the ‘origin’ of ideas through way of human knowledge and “degrees of belief, opinion, and assent”, is that ideas and knowledge are developed from experience rather than being bestowed at birth (Uzgalis). There are three main points that he details in his argument: first, the nature of knowledge; then moral belief and faith; lastly the varieties of knowledge. Locke begins with questioning the validity of the assumed origin of ideas and knowledge, what are known as “certain innate principles. These are conceived as primary notions; letters printed on the mind of man, so to speak—which the soul receives when it first comes into existence, and that it brings into the world with it” (Locke, John, George Berkeley, and David Hume, 8). An example of this that Locke uses is one of children who come into the world without having “immediately perceived” these principles but gradually learning them as they grow and come into society (Uzgalis). He goes on to attack “dispositional accounts”, the proposition that states that innate principles are not always perceived at the same time but rather that they are triggered by certain events, actions, etc.(Uzgalis). However, these “do not provide an adequate criterion” for differentiating between innate propositions and the ones that the mind discovers and learns through experience (Locke, John, and Jonathan Bennet). From this, Locke moves into moral belief. He says that moral ideas were “inventions of the human mind” and not innate, yet the reasoning and understanding of these ideas need a higher being, which Locke bases upon Christian religious views (Dunn, 168). Since there is such a God, then, there must be a reason, regarding principles, as to why the “non-moral ones that are claimed to be innate are of no great use, and the moral ones that are claimed to be innate are not self-evident, and nothing distinguishes those two groups from some other truths that are not said to be innate” (Locke, John, and Jonathan Bennet). In other words, the non-moral principles that are simply within a person are not used because it would go against the moral values set by the community, the moral principles that are “claimed” to be innate are not seen as obvious or pronounced, and nothing separates these innate principles from ones set by the community. Locke concludes with the varieties of knowledge, reiterating that knowledge comes from experience; yet it is not only experience that brings knowledge but intuition and sense perception as well. Lizzie wizard (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizzie wizard: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding in Critique on Locke on Ideas

Critique on Locke's on Ideas

Within Locke’s argument there are many good points given as to why there cannot be innate knowledge, the best being that children do not know what they should and should not do. There is truth in that all things must be learned; in life there are the accepted rules of respecting one another, such as when a child picks up something pointy and proceeds to poke the child next to them without a second thought; in religion, to keep with the Christian worldview, the Ten Commandments, which dictate the simplest rules of living. However, Locke does not do a good job of explaining where the sense of inherent morality is from; that feeling of that something is good or bad without any rules dictating it; that “gut feeling”. Innate ideas and principles are necessary for the stability of religion, morality and natural law. His views contradict this and many of the rationales behind the creation, consequences, and rewards for laws created throughout history until the modern day. Locke also uses simple ideas often and allows the reader to ‘fill in the gaps’ so to speak. This has led to many possible interpretations on his text and “although many [philosophers/readers] understand ideas as mental objects, some understand them as mental acts”, which can change the meaning of Locke’s explanation and purpose(Connoly). Another critique that often comes up from his Essay is: if ideas are indeed the immediate objects of experience, how is it possible to know that there is anything beyond them? Locke answers this saying that “perception is a natural process and thus ordained by God,” therefore it cannot be untrue or misleading (Rogers). In the 18th century as well as modern age, where individual liberties are growing more and more important and ideas on God are becoming more elastic, this explanation wavers under skepticism and lack of ‘rational’ explanation, possibly undermining many of his arguments and reasoning due to the assumption of God and the general like-mindedness that he presumes his readers will have.Lizzie wizard (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizzie wizard: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Locke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509074104/http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/ac/Phil1003-2008/Locke2.ppt to http://www0.hku.hk/philodep/courses/ac/Phil1003-2008/Locke2.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911101831/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html to http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

john locke was a pussy

}} 165.29.109.125 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017

Delete “This is now known as empiricism. An example of Locke's belief in empiricism can be seen in his quote, "whatever I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to throw it into the fire." This shows the ideology of science in his observations in that something must be capable of being tested repeatedly and that nothing is exempt from being disproven. Challenging the work of others, Locke is said to have established the method of introspection, or observing the emotions and behaviours of one’s self.[6]” and its corresponding citation in the bibliography as they are both to be substituted. Add section titled: Theory of knowledge and probability Content: Locke’s ideas on the origin and reliability of knowledge constituted the base of empiricism. He wrote:

“The Understanding Faculties being given to Man, not barely for Speculation, but also for the Conduct of his Life, Man would be at a great loss, if he had nothing to direct him, but what has the Certainty of true Knowledge… Therefore, as God has set some Things in broad day-light; as he has given us some certain Knowledge…So in the greater part of our Concernment, he has afforded us only the twilight, as I may say so, of Probability, suitable, I presume, to that State of Mediocrity and Probationership, he has been pleased to place us in here, wherein to check our over-confidence and presumption, we might by every day’s Experience be made sensible of our short sightedness and liableness to Error…[5]”

To explain the validity of his theory on probability he goes on to say: “As Demonstration is the shewing of the agreement or disagreement of two Ideas, by the intervention of one or more Proofs, which have a constant, immutable, and visible connexion one with another: so Probability is nothing but the appearance of such an Agreement or Disagreement, by the intervention of Proofs, whose connection is not constant and immutable, or at least is not perceived to be so, but is or appears, for the most part to be so, and is enough to induce the Mind to judge the Proposition to be true, or false, rather than the contrary.[5]” Locke shows in these two quotes that knowledge must be achieved through observation and the creation of a theory, which is then proven or disproven by other related factors. He holds that there is little true knowledge, and one example of which is “There must be a first cause or God[5]”. Locke suggests that other’s opinions be respected because simply giving away our own ideas to them might backfire.[70] These thoughts led to his claims that one may not know whether the next thing will drop or if it will suddenly go up, even though we are psychologically hardwired to think so. There is no proof to say that the event will happen in the future. Thus, it is not knowledge but merely a matter of probability. This principle applies to all of science, except mathematics, and also to assertions on the immaterial. He agreed with Descartes on the fact that some truth is knowledge due to other self-apparent truths, such as the fact that thinking automatically proves you exist.[71] Add Citations: 6. Locke, J., & Woozley, A. D. (1964). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Fount. 70. Uzgalis, W. (2001, September 2). John Locke (E. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved November 5, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ 71. Rogers, G. A. (2017, October 20). John Locke. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke#toc280613 AlvinMilaqi (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Deletion of that is not explained. That section contains too long quotes Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Locke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019073702/http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_4/2_4_3.pdf to https://mises.org/journals/jls/2_4/2_4_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315171711/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/cobb-cliff-and-fred-foldvary_john-locke-on-property-1999.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/cobb-cliff-and-fred-foldvary_john-locke-on-property-1999.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

updates to entry based on newly published scholarship in the American Historical Review

Good afternoon, I would like to update the wikipedia entry on John Locke based on the findings published in my October article in the American Historical Review. I would particularly like to amend the discussion of the Fundamental Constitutions and explain the context behind Locke's ownership (and sale) of Royal African Company shares (King Charles II paid Locke for his service on the Council of foreign plantations 1672-1674 in RAC stock, and Locke sold it in June 1675 at the moment of the emergence of the Whig party, which was led by Locke's mentor Shaftesbury). he was a bit-investor--far from a major one. I say this having read all of the RAC early records, and particularly their stock transactions. In terms of the Fundamental Constitutions, my article explains its origins in the King's original charter of 1665 (which predates Locke's acquaintance with Shaftesbury) and relocates the Fundamental Constitutions as a formal legal document written in the voice of (and signed and sealed by) the eight proprietors. I have personally seen the evidence of how much Locke was paid to make copies on vellum etc. The current discussion that places Locke (and Shaftesbury) as the main authors should be amended. (They are not the main ones to support the hierarchies espoused in it--rather six of the original eight proprietors were strong proponents of hierarchy and divine right to the extent that they had spent the prior decade in exile with their king. Most of all I would like to add new material on Locke's 1698 sketch of amendments to Virginia's Constitution, a document that until now has not been included among Locke's political writings: Mark Goldie at Cambridge has told me that he agrees he should have included it among Locke's major political writings. He also told me that my article is the most important to be written on Locke & slavery in the last 40 years. I have a full text of Locke's Virginia Plan (Plan to amend Virginia's Constitution from 1698)that I would also like to post to the web and then to provide a link from here. Below is a link to my article in the American Historical Review (October 2017)--the link should be free access and sharing it is permitted for these purposes.

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/122/4/1038/4320238?guestAccessKey=8b2e0af8-275e-4b2c-b6a4-6a3872c266b0

I'm new to wikipedia, so all help and advice is appreciated. cheers Holly Holly Brewer, "Slavery, Sovereignty, and 'Inheritable Blood': Rethinking John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery" American Historical Review (October 2017) 122:1038-1078. Hbrewerclio (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Holly, I've read almost half your article and I think it's splendid, although I'm certainly no authority on Locke. I suggest you do some bold editing and add the material you wish to contribute, with appropriate references, of course. Best wishes, Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

American Historical Review seems to be a reliable source so information from it could be included in this article. You would need to be careful of WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:UNDUE (not giving undue weight to a certain viewpoint) when incorporating the information, however. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Am Hist Review articles are the product of complex collaboration and extensive vetting by scholars from multiple viewpoints, and typically represent the scholarly consensus--they are NOT isolated opinions of one person. Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of 'Influenced' content

Do we agree with this edit by which much of the "Influenced" content was removed? I do not. — goethean 19:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

These sections on "influences" and "influenced" on many philosophers pages are always tricky, because they tend to get added to, and unduly extended by the sequential addition of new candidates that have the preference of a particular editor. So, sometimes simply paring it down seems to be the proper action. I don't know much about Platinga and how important he may be to a certain branch of modern philosophy, but he certainly should not precede Kant or replace Burke and Schopenhauer in such a list about Locke. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria was right to remove the ridiculously overstuffed list of "influences" and "influenced". I also agree with warshy that Platinga is incongruous in this list. Carlstak (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that a section on “influenced” might be better late on. This would be after an explanation of his ideas. The current heading “influenced” introduces material on influenced but then goes on to describe the ideas. This seems wrong, to me. So the order would be: Ideas Influenced DouglasBell (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant influence, rather than influenced. DouglasBell (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal African Company

I think it is important for this page to mention, with appropriate emphasis, that John Locke was a major investor in the Royal African Company and that he thereby profited from the slave trade. This is unexpected in an enlightened thinker and leads us to reflect upon how different the way of thinking in society was in those days, and on the influence that accepted social norms have on the thinking even of intellectuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.144.189 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Reference Note 19 (Broken Link)

Reference note number 19 is used to support the fact that Thomas Jefferson considered Locke to be one of history's three greatest men. It contains a link to https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm033.html. That link is broken, and the information it contained has been moved to http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/tr11a.html#obj11. I would edit this myself, but I do not meet the requirements to edit a semi-protected article. --Tylerrbeauregard (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the link as requested. Greyjoy ^talk 05:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor typographical correction

In this article, in subsection 2.7, the sentence includes "the Descartes'," which is incorrect. It should simply read "Descartes'."

24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"The" refers to "argument" not to Descartes. Ruslik_Zero 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll cite the entire line. "Locke was critical of the Descartes' dream argument, his claim is that we cannot have physical pain in dreams as we do in waking life." But only "dream argument" has the hyperlink, not "Descartes'." The source listed for the sentence has no "Descartes'" in the title. Something seems to be confusing, at the very least, and it would be good to change it.

While we're on the topic of typographical corrections, the comma after "argument" should be replaced with a semicolon, actually. I just noticed that. Maybe this is nitpicking, but I feel that Wikipedia should be formal, and that means fixing typos and so on. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll cite the entire line. "Locke was critical of the Descartes' dream argument, his claim is that we cannot have physical pain in dreams as we do in waking life." But only "dream argument" has the hyperlink, not "Descartes'." The source listed for the sentence has no "Descartes'" in the title. Something seems to be confusing, at the very least, and it would be good to change it to "Descartes'." Also, the "his" is an ambiguous reference, and changing it to "Locke's" would be less confusing. While we're on the topic of typographical corrections, the comma after "argument" should be replaced with a semicolon, actually. Maybe this is nitpicking, but I feel that Wikipedia should be formal, and that means fixing typos and so on.

I noticed that I suggested some changes above, but there has been no response. I had forgotten about the edit request template, so I am putting it here now just in case. I am hoping that those new changes will be made, or the reason not to do them will be explained. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done This has been reworded. Please advise if this rewording is not acceptable. Thank you  spintendo  07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks! 24.5.8.227 (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018

A change of the cited sect of liberalism from clasical liberalism to current liberalism since John Locke's philosophy and liberalism applies to all forms, not just the classically branded sect of liberalism. It's more educationally accurate to replace the citation of Liberalism to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism and not "Classical" liberalism. 108.71.193.211 (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What to add to improve the article

I am editing this article for my world history 1102 class, and would like to propose the edits I have come up with, and get suggestions for more. I plan to add more information on Locke's influence on Thomas Jefferson and the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and move his life and education into its own section. Please respond with comments and suggestions on these possible improvements and other ideas for improvements. Sarahtatehahn (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Could Category:Christian philosophers be replaced with the more specific Category:Anglican philosophers? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

Please add Damaris Cudworth Masham to John Locke's list of influences. It is well documented that she influenced his thought. DiotimaLives (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. If other editors object, this change may be reverted, but it looks reasonable to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Locke invented introspection?

I'm sorry, what?

"Challenging the work of others, Locke is said to have established the method of introspection, or observing the emotions and behaviours of one's self.[14]"

I'm pretty sure this is an ability possessed by all humans, during all our history probably. I'm pretty sure it's possessed by some animals too, which feel remorse or who ponder before taking an action. If we want to be myopic and unhealthily academic, we can give Plato and Socrates as earlier "inventors" of introspection and I'd rather agree with the affirmation that Socrates invented it, rather than the one saying Locke did.

Did I misunderstand? 188.25.92.101 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

john Lock

lohn lock is smaet and cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2E51:BE0:3447:1E11:CC1B:C0A8 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Under the 'Religious beliefs' section, the article states that "...and may indicate that near the end of his life Locke returned nearer to an Arian position, thereby accepting Christ's pre-existence". Following the Arian link, the article states in the first para: "The Arian concept of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father." I may have misunderstood here, but the two statements seem to conflict - specifically "Christ's pre-existence" conflicting with "the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father." In my opinion, this is either erroneous, or ambiguous in some way. Either way, I think some clarification is needed here to avoid misunderstanding on the part of non-scholars such as myself. Sls56789 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

John Locke was not a pro slavery activist

An activist is someone who campaigns to bring about a certain social change. John Locke's philosophy was against slavery and he certainty did not campaign in its favor. Even though he had financial investments in the slave trade it is a stretch to consider him a pro slavery activist. I would remove him from that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domisterwoozy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Per "In addition, he participated in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves." in the article I would have to disagree with the above. A category is just a category, and his views around slavery and involvement in the slave-trade are explained in the article.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Managed to trace the unsourced quote down in the opening lines of this page. It's from the 'Life of John Locke' by 'Peter King' (1830) The quote can be directly read in google books - The Life of John Locke with Extracts from His Correspondence, Journals, 2 Stephans history (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It is already cited in Baldwin, B.T. (1913). Ruslik_Zero 20:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

dab

xvxΩ √ ç xJohn Lockezbdvzdbv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.175.191 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Date correction

Should 1675 be 1657 in "He obtained a bachelor of medicine in February 1675"?

Change "about 12 miles from Bristol" to "about an 11 mile walk southwest of Bristol" -- source is Google maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to fix a spelling mistake

In the fourth paragraph under the "Life and work" section, the letter "i" in the word "his" is capitalized. I believe this should be corrected. 138.47.147.38 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing it out Mujinga (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Theory and value of property link

Currently "property" in the first sentence of the theory and value of property section links to the Property (Philosophy) article but it is obviously not discussing that meaning of the term.

Probably should be changed to Property rights (economics) since the next sentence refers to natural rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.94.174 (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau David Hume, and Immanuel Kant.

Missing comma between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and David Hume. Recommend changing so it reads:

Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. 75.157.66.223 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Goldsztajn (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

John Locke

John Locke has always been known to be the “ Father of Dummies“ not the father of liberalism which eludes to saying he had communistic views, which he did not. By stating that John Locke was the father of liberalism , that’s perversely twisting history . RB Locke no he was known as " Father of Liberalism " not of democracy.24.142.244.50 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)a friend (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2021 (

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Change in one of the places where the passage says empiricism so that there is a link to the Wikipedia page about empiricism. NighIsTheEnd (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahtatehahn, Anabelleb50.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Slavery

More is needed on his role in the slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.85.130 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what this section really needs is more about his views on slavery. We have three paragraphs and all we are told specifically about his views is that 'he wrote against slavery in general'. Six words in three paragraphs. What exactly did he say about slavery and the slave trade? That is what I came to this page to learn and I learned nothing. That is pretty poor going considering some people have cited him as one of the most important early critics of slavery, or even claiming he was the first abolitionist. With such big claims floating around, more detail is needed than can substantiate, falsify or clarify those claims. LastDodo (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Further to this I added something of what he said in Two Treatises of Government, which I lifted from that page. LastDodo (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)