Talk:John Locke/Archive 1

Gross ERROR

The rye house plot was against Charles II, NOT James II..pls fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.239.130 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifications

Hello, I'm thinking of adding and modifying a few things, like changing Locke's status as an Enlightenment to a 17th century philosopher and expanding and clarifying the parts about the Essay. 5 Nov 2004

there needs to be mention here of his view on the social contract. Kingturtle 18:32, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wonder whether mentioining that hew was much influenced by Polish brethren thoughts (he had their works in his library) szopen

They need to mention the Earl of Shaftesbury.

There is now a link to Lord Shaftesbury's page. --Publunch 11:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some flaws

There needs to be a more detailed discussion of his philosophy, especially his _Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ and the _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, although perhaps not to the point of making separate entries redundant. The social and political context in which Locke worked would also be valuable. He was raised by Puritans and associated himself with a number of political subversives (and participated in the Rye House Plot). The discussion of Locke vis-a-vis the American Revolution seems a bit POV, and reminds me of the assertions made by Lyndon LaRouche and his followers. It may be that Locke's views, viewed in toto, were not a perfect match for the ideology of the American Revolution, but to say that they exercized no influence is false. Jefferson himself declared that the Declaration of Independence was "all Locke."

The article doesn't say that Locke's views "exercized no influence" on the American revolution, but that he was not "an important intellectual influence" on it. Of course, it partly depends on how you define "important". Jefferson was the most intellectual of the "revolutionaries"; I would be surprised if Locke made much of an impression on Patrick Henry for example. (But this is probably a matter for people who know American history better than 18th century philosophy.) That sentence definitely needs to be fixed however, since you can be opposed to some movement even if you are at the same time an influence on it.

I apologize for overstating the case, but Locke's influence on Jefferson certainly had consequences that, perhaps mistakenly, I view as important. Locke's philosophy was by no means the exclusive influence; Bernard Bailyn's _Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_ certainly illustrates the varied motivations for seeking independence. As for Locke's 'opposition' to the American Revolution, I must admit to some misgivings for the reason that Locke lived and wrote in a separate context from that of the revolutionaries. We might speculate that he would have opposed the Revolution, but since he died 71 years before the outbreak of hostilities we can only evaluate his views in their context. Although most colonists in 1704 would have bristled at an authoritarian imperial policy (if the experience in New England is any indication), independence was not high on their list of concerns. It should also be noted that the American Revolution happened after liberal values had over 70 years to flourish (and perhaps diverge from Locke's vision) in the mother country.

Why don't you modify the Locke article along these lines? No one seems to be doing much work on it at the moment, and I think your familiarity with Bailyn's book qualifies you to do it. (I bought the book but never read it...) You might even consider writing a paragraph about whether Locke would have supported the American revolution. (I would guess he would have, given that to the best of my memory Burke, the "father of conservatism" who reacted against Locke's liberalism, supported it. But given the time difference of almost a century which you point out, the question might not be one that makes much sense.) I'm new to wikipedia, but I think it thrives on people with developed views on a subject putting their thoughts down in articles. -- Hyperion 05:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely that Shaftesbury's influence on Locke should be noted. There would have been no Locke as we know him without Shaftesbury.

Hyperion 20:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is almost identical to John Locke's writing in terms of its philosophy on the government. John Locke is not only important but essential, although he himself did not have much interests in colonies.

Well, de optimo senatore :) Jefferson (i've heard) hda this book. Goslicki's opinions on government were once banned in England, but had many editions. Could Locke just quote Goslicki as well as Jefferson? What were phrases in Declaration of Independence you are referring to?

Some of the quotes from the Goslicki's book: "..The public happiness of the community lies in the private happiness of individual subjects…" " All citizens are born equal and have equal rights". "Kings are created not for themselves but for the good of their subjects". "… sometimes, a nation frustrated by tyranny and excessive powers of its king, takes upon itself the undoubted right to fight for its freedoms, and either by conspiracy or in an open struggle to shake off the yoke and to take the helm of government in its own hands…" Szopen 09:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The phrase 'British empiricist' is used, if I click on it, I get redirected to 'empiricism'. I prefer 'english empiricist' to 'British empiricist', where 'english' is the language that these people used. Berkeley was Irish, and Hume and Reid were Scottish. Maybe just 'empiricist' is best, because Scots don't like being called English and Irish people don't like being called British. --Publunch 18:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I've started to put some more content in, but I am all too aware that this entry is still inadequate. I know a bit about the Essay, but need an historian and a political philosopher to write about his life and about the Two Treatises. Maybe I'll do some reading and then see if I can precis what I have found out. --Publunch 11:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably won't do much more to this page now, not because it is perfect, but because I've got as far as I can get and I've got other things to see to.--Publunch 11:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

are all of the links necessary? law, america, etc...

---

Just to point out, it's tabula rosa not tabula rasa

No, rasa is correct. Rasa means blank, as in a blank slate; rosa means pedestal or table, as in under the table: a secret arrangement.

Yes, "rosa" is incorrect, but not for the reasons stated. "Rosa" means "rose" (ie, the flower); "tabula" is from where our English word "table" derives ("tabula," meaning "board," "plank," or "slate"). "Tabula Rasa" is "Slate + Scraped" (ie, a blank or clean slate). "Tabula Rosa" would mean "Slate Rose." Scottclemens

The social history of John Locke's Family

Recently i review a somewhat "sketchie" genealogy of the English/American FISKE family, of which it is suggested John's mother was a Fiske. The details of the period in which he grew up must have had a great influence on his later writtings. What is known about his pedegree and youth?

---

A discussion of Locke's Constitution of the Carolinas is entirely missing, and would help flesh out how Locke actually applied his ideas. Also, his justifications for Native American genocide should be mentioned. AaronSw 03:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This needs some serious work. the epitaph part is all messed up.

why noam

john locke influened american philosophy. This is what is essential. How noam chomsky uses Locke to interpret history is irrelevant. Stick with his conception of individual rights come property rights and his epistemology.

---

Note how his detractors tend to rely on Locke's uninfluential works, written when he was still a young man, living under Stuart tyranny when publishing controversial political sentiments could get you sentenced to death - rather than on his influential works, written by the older more mature thinker, after the Glorious Revolution under conditions of political liberty, where he was free to write what he really meant. This is weak and pathetic. TimShell 21:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

this section is way too critical of Locke's ideological flaws and ignores his very influential second treatise on government.

Addition 5th June 2005

The stuff added here about the Essay Concerning Human Understanding was also posted here a couple of months ago. If the person who inserted it in the Wikipedia article is not John Perry (a Stanford prof, and author of the blog posting), it needs to be removed. I'll be emailing him tomorrow, and removing the addition unless he indicates that he posted the material and/or he's happy for it to be there under the normal Wikipedia licence. --Andrew Norman 23:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The addition is also long enough that it might be better located in the ECHU article (currently a stub) than in the main Locke page. This is assuming, of course, that Prof. Perry doesn't want it removed outright. -RJC 02:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion in Section on Two Treatises

There is a separate article for the Two Treatises of Government (as there is for An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and A Letter Concerning Toleration). Greater detail should probably be put on those pages, with the main article (this one) giving only a brief outline of conclusions and the general flow of the arguments. -RJC 29 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Mistake concerning his view of the church

The article mistakenly states that Locke believed that a national church "would serve as an instrument of social harmony." I could be missing out on something, but I am not aware of such evidence. In his "A Letter Concerning Toleration" Locke actually argues AGAINST a national church and in favor of separation of Church affairs from government affairs. While a devout Christian, Locke advocated dialogue and tolerance towards other "religions" that were in minority in Britain, such as Catholicism, Islam, etc. He advocated tolerance and love towards them, even towards Atheists, as long as their views would not be imposed on the majority of the Christians.

---

Unless I am confusing my political theorists, I am pretty sure that in "A Letter Concerning Toleration" he does not advocate toleration for atheists because he says that they cannot be bound by oaths. He also does not believe in toleration of religions that would include allegiance to a foreign prince or anyone except the magistrate, thus ruling out Catholics in his estimation. -G

Deletion of Infobox

Why was the infobox deleted without discussion first? I'm the creator of the template, so I would like to know ways it can be improved. I've re-inserted it for the time being. This template is used on other philosopher's pages as well. Please offer criticisms on its talk page Thanks! --FranksValli 06:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Internal link to South Carolina Landgraves/Cassiques List

If it is the same John Locke, Landgrave, Created 1671; I suggest that where appropriate in this artical, an internal link be made to the list of approximately 50 South Carolina Landgraves & Cassiques. Also, on his name in that list, a link back to this artical be made.

John Locke quote

Hello this is my first post here, I hope I'm not making any mistake. Someone posted a quote at the end of the article on randomness (I think the user name is John locker):

"That which is static and repetitive is boring. That which is dynamic and random is confusing. In between lies art." —John A. Locke

I would have liked to investigate that quote further as I'm working on a paper for college. Could anyone give me the reference for that quote? I tried to contact the user but it didn't seem to work. Thank you very much to anyone who can help.

I don't know the answer but you may want to ask that question on wikiquote as well. Morphh 18:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

he had optimistic views said all humans started out with a clean slate

John Locke relation

John Locke was my great-great-great grandfather 24.233.51.131 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)avi

Revision

This page needs to be closely reviewed and revised, and should not be considered a reliable source. The writing is poor in many sections and statements do not flow in a reliable narrative structure. For example, see the sentence "Also, he was inherently anti-democracy." This comes out of nowhere and provides no explanation. I don't mean to criticize for the sake of criticism, I was just struck by how unhelpful this article was. I will post more on this when I have more time. Others help!

It certainly needs improvement, and citations - the biography section is OK, everything from "influences" onwards needs major revision, with references (e.g. "Most American liberal scholars" - which ones? Where?). Much of that later section looks like notes from somewhere else. --ajn (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I randomly stumbled upon this article and wondered what exactly happened with the "influence" section. Looking at the history, this edit seems to have tried to add a lot on Locke's ideas, but ended up looking like notes or an outline someone took from high school. --68.142.14.96 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

indirect realism

And also, it is written under an unaceptable "American" focus.

Would be glad if that was changed

hello, sometime lets add lockes metaphysical views of indirect realism. see also Philosophy of perception#Philosophical ideas about perception. i cant do it now, i have a test 142.104.250.115 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Crazy imbalance

The introduction, and the rest of this article, paint a seriously one-sided picture of Locke. There is essentially nothing on his non-political philosophy, which has also been enormously influential (e.g. the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the distinction between nominal and real essences). I might try to fix this soon, but since it might require some major changes I wanted to get some input. Cadr 11:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To back up what I'm saying, see [1], which is about 50/50 political/non-political. Cadr 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't join in, because I have enough going on at the moment without starting an in-depth study of Locke, but the article does need major rewriting, as I said above. Nothing at all on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - one sentence which links him with Hume and Berkeley. The article as it stands is very much slanted towards "Locke as father of the American Revolution", which is a caricature of his actual importance. As I say, I can't get involved in a major rewrite, but I'd strongly support it. --ajn (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is half of an article at An Essay Concerning Human Understanding which I have never finished. Otherwise, political philosophy is pop philosophy and is the most covered aspect of virtually everyone's work here at WP. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please add Locke's non-political philosophy stuff. I only know Locke's political philosophy so I can't really help much... Mikker ^... 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Influence

The last paragraph of this section, I think, needs some citation, since it itself admits that the issue is controversial, as well as flies in the face of what is conventional wisdom on the topic. I mean, it claims that Locke was not a big impact on the founders, yet we know that Locke was a huge impact on Jefferson. In addition, the paragraph only provided examples from Madison and The Federalist Papers, which were controversial and certainly did not represent the opinion of all of the founders. I'm going to remove that section, but please add it in again if you can find a citation.Jackson744 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed this comment from the same section:

"though not to the degree that was once thought" due to, I believe, the need for a citation.Jackson744 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy other than Politics

There is no mention of Locke's thought as regards epistemology, metaphysics, ethics etc. All is devoted to his political philosophy, which is indeed, a masterly political philosophy. But might I suggest that the editors on this page focus also on his ideas such as the tabula rasa, his conception of knowledge as founded on experience, on his ideas (simple/complex) and emphasis on scientific enquiry. These were all massively influential ideas at their time, and continued to be. --Knucmo2 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is stunning that nothing is mentioned about Locke's theories of perception and mind. They were hugely important and influential! Inexcusable oversight. DJProFusion 18 July 2006

Thirded! I came to this page looking for just that. As such I still know nothing about it and can't correct it, but someone should. Kisch 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Against Democracy

Locke was against democracy, at least the Athenian model. He knew that if the mob rules the individual would loose rights. I think he was for republicanism though. Shouldn't it be noted he is against true democracy (not republicanism found in most countries)? Zachorious 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary, as so few people think of the Athenian model when they think of democracy. In fact, I don't think the article mentions much about Locke and democracy in the first place. In any case, the differentiation between a democracy and a republic carries little currency among scholars or in public opinion. Maybe it would have 300 years ago, but not today. To make the distinction risks being idiosyncratic. Feel free to mention mob rule or individual rights however. --Beaker342 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the difference between Athenian democracy and republican (or representative) democracy is all important. The same fears were held by the framers of the American Constitution (indeed, the constitutions of most of the Anglo-Saxon nations). Athenian democracy is mob rule, unlimited rule of the people, whereas representative democracy is rule of the people selected by the people. The reason that today many people can't see the difference between direct Athenian democracy and, say, American Republican democracy is that, for many, representative democracy is democracy; we are told that America is a democracy... I would say that to add Locke's anti-direct democracy views are valid and explain why representative democracy evolved to what it is today.Mdgr 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV bibliography

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to praise this or that scholar. --Beaker342 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agnes Keene

His mother, Agnes, was "reputed" to be very beautiful? It appears that John took after his father.Lestrade 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Locke's Religion

Was Locke a Unitarian? It's certainly a contentious issue, since I don't think Locke ever self-identified as such. Thus the claim appears self-serving. Feel free to expand on Locke's religous thought, however.--Beaker342 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I beleive we should add that important part of his bio here. I did add it with a citation but someone deleted it claiming that this is unfounded. Any opinions on this?Omerlives 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because the claim seemed to take the form "Unitarians are tolerant. Locke was tolerant. Therefore Locke was a Unitarian." --Beaker342 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source is self-published and therefore of dubious reliability.--Beaker342 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion, however, if we can find evidence that he denied the divinity of Jesus. My edit may have unduly harsh. I'm just so very skeptical of slapping a label on someone who never used it himself.--Beaker342 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

POV-ness

why is the bit about where he lived taken in miles from bristol, don't you (everybody who reads) think this is a bit POV? but I haven't changed it in case there's a valid reason and it has just escaped my extremely powerful and logical brain, hehehe

Because Bristol is the nearest large town? If it were miles from Carlisle, that would be odd.. Kisch 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Birthplace Issue

Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in a small thatched cottage by the church in Wrington, Somerset, 11.42 miles (18.38 km) from Bristol.

Is it really appropiate to have 11.42 miles as the measurement? It implies a degree of precision that I cannot verify in a seperate source. cobalt91 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

sigh...someone has written of Locke's douchery and erections, among other things. Youaredj

While I am a neophyte when it comes to Wikipedia (though still a proud member), I corrected Vandalism and other issues such as "Spanish Empiricist". There was no such thing as Spanish Empiricism as such. While speaking of Locke's 'douchery and erections' may be amusing, it is altogether inappropriate for the credibility and the reputation of Wikipedia, not to mention its accuracy. In short, all is back to normal. Kirobos

Found some more vandalism; has been eliminated. 138.192.19.6 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom

This page has been nominated for Good Article status. I dropped by to review the article and am impressed with the thoroughness of the article. There are several improvements I'd like to see before I promote the article, so I've put it on hold. These are:

• The article is a little difficult for the average reader to comprehend. Try avoiding passive constructions such as "Locke has often been classified," "a tanner's daughter who was reputed to be very beautiful," and "Locke was sent to the prestigious Westminster School." Simple past tenses are also easier to read, for example, "who served" instead of "who had served." I do not see much of a problem with participle in the article or longer sentences with multiple clauses, which also can make prose difficult to follow. While these constructions are not wrong, most readers of English take longer to process them than active tenses and simple constructions. The result is that article can feel a bit fuzzy and overly abstract. Obviously, we can't avoid abstraction completely in an article on a philosopher, but it would help to reduce such to a minimum.

• The article could also be a bit more organized. I think a section on Locke's major works would be helpful. We could extract the details of the discussion of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and other works and put it there. We also could use more subheads in the biography section. In the lead, it would also help to move the information about the influence of Locke upon the American Revolution and Socialism to the first paragraph and the discussion of his place in philosophy proper to the second.

• Finally, the article needs to be more thoroughly referenced with in-line citations. I look for about one reference per section. This helps with verifiability and makes it easier for a reader to follow a point that interests them to more reading material. A rule of thumb beyond that is to cite every quotation made in the article and any information that you find in only one source.

Thanks for the nom. I look forward to approving it after you all have improved it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of John Locke

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Locke;s mother is Anne Keene, not Agnne.

• • • Maybe someone could add a link to the 'other' John Locke, the American Union supporter who during the civil war published the Natsby Letters. There is a coincidental connection between the two of these John Lockes, and in their ways of thinking. Also, they both had direct and enormous(sp) influences on American history. Peace.

Vandalism

We really need to get this page semiprotected on a semipermanent basis. The vandals are really running rampant. --Beaker342 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Human nature

“Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance."

No wonder Wikipedia object to POV. This is wrong and couldn’t be wronger. Below are all relevant references to human nature from Locke’s Second Treatise (Cambridge UP 1960, but presumably the paragraphs would be valid for any edition)

Para 123: Enjoyment of the right to be free in the state of nature “is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others. For all being Kings as much as he, and every Man his Equal, and the greater part no strict Observers of Equity and Justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure.” Note: the greater part.

He goes on in para 123: “This makes him willing to quit a Condition, which however free, is full of fears and continual dangers.” This state of nature is a lovely free place except that it is crawling with horrible humans.

Para 124: There needs to be known law because of “Men being biased by their interest.” Note: not some men, but men. I am not omitting anything nice he had to say; he hasn’t got anything nice.

Editor Peter Laslett, in his footnote to 124, quotes from Letter on Toleration, “But the pravity of mankind being such that they had rather injuriously prey upon the fruits of another mans labours than take pains to provide for themselves…” Delightful creatures.

Para 125: “…Men being partial to themselves…” (Not some men.)

Para 128: “And were it not for the corruption, and the vitiousness of degenerate Men…” Here Locke actually allows the possibility that some men might not be vicious. This is about as positive as he ever gets.

Para 135, footnote by Locke: “Laws politick, ordained for external order and regiment amongst Men, are never framed as they should be… unless presuming Man to be in regard of his depraved Mind, little better than a wild Beast…” Note a presumption of a depraved wild beast.

Para 136, Discussing the need for separation of Legislative and Executive: “And because it may be too great a temptation to humane frailty apt to grasp at power…”

On the whole, a pretty bleak picture of human nature. Locke did say people were blank slates but he clearly didn’t believe it as we tend to interpret it. Perhaps he was thinking of some superficial level, such as your language or religion. From the above quotes there seems to be no question that Locke thought that men were bad and made that way.

Hobbes never describes men in such insulting language as Locke. Hobbes just said people were self-interested and a deadly war of all against all was the natural outcome.

They both thought human nature bad, immutably bad. But Hobbes couldn’t think straight. If human nature is bad, why would you give one human absolute power? Locke follows through on bad human nature and offers the solution: divide power and make the executive answerable to the “legislative.” - Pepper 150.203.227.130 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this is so much a NPOV problem as it is a question of Locke interpretation. It is certainly a very standard interpretation of Locke to take him to be putting more faith in human reason to discern and abide by moral obligations -- this is why people can live at least for a limited time in the state of nature without it becoming a state of war. But human nature is certainly flawed and prone to self-partiality, hence the eventual need for government. Of course, it would be wrong to see this difference with Hobbes as a simple dichotomy between "good" and "bad" views of human nature; as Pepper's quotes show, the difference is not so simple. Perhaps the article needs a more nuanced way of putting the point. I don't not think it is at all inaccurate to claim that Locke put more faith in "reason", but it needs to be made clear this faith is in reason's ability to ground moral obligations (since Hobbes certainly has faith in *prudential* reason to discern the means of self-preservation). As for "tolerance," I don't know enough about Locke's views here, but I suspect that his argument for tolerance is not based on any basic disposition toward such in human nature. Other thoughts? Sarvodaya 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a secondary source, this is all original synthesis, and is disqualified under WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a forum for academic debates. --Beaker342 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that even the original claim does not cite a secondary source. I've tried to lay out what I take to be a standard interpretation of Locke, which I think is the basis for the claim as it currently reads. I agree that secondary sources need to be cited (for the standard interpretation as well as other competing ones) if any change is to be made. Sarvodaya 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement here. Doubtless much could be done to improve the quality of the article. As it is now, the article seems like a bunch of random observations instead of a serious article. Changing this would be a massive undertaking, and I unfortunately don't have the time for it right now. --Beaker342 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great?

Why is Cyrus listed as an influence on Locke? (In the the Western philosophy infobox.) I am not aware of any connection (philosophical or otherwise) between these two figures, and none is mentioned in the body of the article. Can someone explain, or should Cyrus' name just be removed? (Looks like the addition was made by Aytakin on 28 Nov.) Sarvodaya 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone was bold and deleted Cyrus. From what I can tell, the latter did leave a legacy of tolerance, which one might want to compare with Locke's own views on the matter. But I am unaware of any kind of direct influence; if there is such an influence, it should be (verifiably) documented in the body of the article. Otherwise, I think we should suppose that the inclusion of the link to Cyrus was just a case of vandalism. Sarvodaya 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm responding late, my reasoning for adding Cyrus the Great as one of the influences is that John Locke owned a copy of Cyropaedia, which is Xenophone's history/story of the education of Cyrus and it talks about the tolerance he had of all races in his nation. This is discussed by a professor in Dartmouth. I think he should be listed, please state your opinion, if no one disagrees after a while, I'll put it back in as one of the influences. --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of a book seems like a very tenuous connection. After all, Locke went to Oxford; he surely had access to thousands of books. What we really need is a scholar who has published work explaining the connection between Locke's philosophy and Cyrus. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this? John Locke said the following in his book Two Treatises of Government, "The great men among the ancients understood very well how to reconcile manual labour with affairs of state, and thought it no lessening to their dignity to make the one the recreation to the other. That indeed which seems most generally to have employed and diverted their spare hours, was agriculture. Gideon among the Jews was taken from threshing, as well as Cincinnatus amongst the Romans from the plough, to command the armies of their countries . . . and, as I remember, Cyrus thought gardening so little beneath the dignity and grandeur of a throne, that he showed Xenophon a large field of fruit trees all of his own planting . . . Delving, planting, inoculating, or any the like profitable employments would be no less a diversion than any of the idle sports in fashion, if men could be brought to delight in them." Now I know, it does not necessarily prove Cyrus' influence but it proves that the Cyropaedia wasn't just one of the thousands of books he had access to and perhaps a book he was very familiar with. --(Aytakin) | Talk 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)a

It's not a philosophic influence. If anything, the quote suggests Xenophon as an influence. Also citing the text risks running into original research. --Beaker342 13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, history shows that Cyrus is in ways one of the originators of the concept of social contract. He made Persia the first empire to truly have a governmental system and a government that which all people respected because he gave them the most freedom to all people regardless of race or religion. The parallel between Cyrus and John Locke is uncanny. --(Aytakin) | Talk 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is original research. I am a Locke scholar, and I have never seen anyone suggest in print that Locke was influenced by Xenophon, let alone by Xenophon's Cyrus. RJC ^Talk 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for now I'll agree with you. But I'll continue to look for any signs that might relate the two! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Labour theory of value?

Could someone please assist the section I've altered on the labour theory of value (now the labour theory of property)? The previous author had stated blatantly that Locke asserts the value of an object is "created" by labour upon it. This is not so. Locke suggests that rightful ownership of property is determined, under the law of nature, by labour. He makes no assertion that labour determines the "value" of said poperty. I've removed all reference to value. He does suggest that man's ownership, via labour, of land can increase the value of that land by increasing its yield. This alone, however, does not support an association with the labour theory of value. For example, Locke posits that formerly common property such as fruit fallen from a tree in the forest, rightfully belongs to the man who labours to gather such fruit and bring it home. He does not suggest that this act increases or creates the value of such fruit. He leaves quite clearly implied that the value of the fruit is in its utility as food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mxbozz (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Absolutely. That kind of blatant nonsense is unnacceptable. --Zach Chidester 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of what is going on here. There is a long scholarly history of attributing the labor theory of value to Locke. You can't pretend it doesn't exist because you interpret things differently. Also, you might consult paragraphs 40 and 42 of the Second Treatise before claiming that Locke never mentions value: "'tis Labor indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing" and "labor makes the far greatest part of the value of things." In addition it is blatantly untrue that labor only increases the value of land. Again, consult 42 where he mentions bread and cloth. Lastly, I think this article should be more citing what has been said about Locke and less original interpretation, per WP:NOR --Beaker342 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God. So there's a long tradition of attributing the labor theory of value to Locke? Yeah ok. Then let's look at your very next sentence: "You can't pretend it doesn't exist because you interpret things differently." Right. So you can pretend an interpretation is correct because it is yours, or because there is a "long tradition" which claims it is correct, but somehow it's wrong to not attribute something to a person? This isn't original interpretation, it is lack of interpretation. Edit your precious paragraphs 40 and 42 into the article and let them speak for themselves if you must. I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in the quotation of a few more paragraphs by others as well as a new subdivision in the article. --Zach Chidester 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Limits to accumulation incomplete?

It seems to me that the section on the limits to accumulation gives only one interpretation of Chapter V - Of Property, which most closely resembles C.B. Macpherson's. The summary of this Chapter, which has been interpreted in various ways, should cite more of the text and minimally give an account of James Tully's objections to Macpherson's interpretation. Right now it merely resembles a personal interpretation, not an unbiased account. --Hodgetts 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome and encouraged to make these contributions. The very fact that you can cite Tully and Macpherson might very well volunteer you for the task. --Beaker342 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Resting Place

Question: Where was he buried? This para. indicates two places of burial. Was he buried in High Laver but later moved to Oxford?

He died in 1704 after a prolonged decline in health, and is buried in the churchyard of the village of High Laver, east of Harlow in Essex, where he had lived in the household of Sir Francis Masham since 1691. Locke never married nor had children. He is buried at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford.

Pardon the ignorance, for I am but a lowly college student, but I think there needs to be a little clarity here. --WithTheWookie 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The find-a-grave link shows a picture of a stone, but it is not clear whether he is actually buried there. Britannica says "John Locke was buried in the parish church of High Laver." It is possible he was later moved, but I have no indication of that. I have amended the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On second look, it seems the Christ Church plaque is a memorial, not a gravestone. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lost

Please can we not reference the Lost TV series here. It has nothing to do with John Locke. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that all explanations/theories regarding the character John Locke on Lost and whether or not his name is a reference to the seventeenth-century philosopher should be relegated to the Lost page. Awadewit 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

We've had a lot of problems on the Philosophy page with silly vandalism (Ashley Cole sucking d--k in the Chelsea locker room, that sort of thing). It was much better when they semi-protected it. I'm starting a page here which you can add your name to, and the page you would like to see protected. edward (buckner) 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. Was it all those Lost viewers? Awadewit 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Influence" needs revision

The "influence" section needs revision - there is a lot of attention payed to Locke's political and economic theory with comparatively little comment on his idea of self. Commentary on his influence on the constitution or whatever and education seem more on the mark than the random comments on his economic beliefs; then, there is in contrast no mention of his influence on Adam Smith, which must have been remarkable (I'm no real specialist in this field), and would better belong to a section titled "influence." (Eeesh 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

The entire article needs massive revision; it is a disgrace. On my long list of things to do. As you can tell from the talk page, Locke's most important work, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, gets almost no mention on this page. I'm not quite sure what you mean by his influence on Adam Smith - do you mean on his Theory of Moral Sentiments or his Wealth of Nations? In many ways, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments was a rejection of the Lockean society that was supposed to be based on contract and reason. Smith's society was based on sympathy. (This is simplistic, of course.) Smith was following in the footsteps of Shaftesbury, who had rebelled against Locke. I am less sure about Locke's influence on the Wealth of Nations. Awadewit 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Quote

Locke stated that all men have the right to "life, liberty and property." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lockemaster (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Locke and the Deist Movement

I was wondering why this page doesn't have any references to English Deism. Locke had great influence on the English Deist movement during the 17th Century and though he did not consider himself a Deist he shared similar beliefs and ideas with them. They had a mutual effect on each other and I believe it is worthy to be on this page.

If anyone is interested, I stumbled upon a very thorough piece during my research: "Relation of John Locke to English Desim" by S.G. Hefelbower Kantus Julii 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a good source, you should contribute to the page yourself! By the way, where was this article published? Awadewit 06:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was published by the University of Chicago Press, 1918 (ISBN: B000J6FAMI), but is hard to find unless you have access to a university library. I would contribute to the page myself but the article is protected and I am unable to do so.Kantus Julii 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have just joined wikipedia. Welcome! Protected pages can be edited by a user once they have been here for four days. So you can add this material in a couple of days. By the way, I do wonder about the publication date of your source. Usually, standard works in a scholarly field are post-1950. This is not always true, though. Did someone recommend this book to you? Here are some good books on English and American deism if you want to work on this issue. The bibliographies in them will help you as well. These books will also be available in a university library:

• Herrick, James A. The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680-1750. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997.
• Walters, Kerry S. Rational Infidels: The American Deists. Durango, CO: Longwood Academic, 1992.
• Hunter, Michael and David Wootoon, eds. Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
• Chappell, Vere, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. (There is an essay here on Locke's philosophy of religion.) Awadewit 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Onlooker 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) The date of 1674 should be changed to 1664 (my guess) in the following paragraph: Locke was awarded a bachelor's degree in 1656 and a master's degree in 1658. He obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674, having studied medicine extensively during his time at Oxford and worked with such noted scientists and thinkers as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower. In 1666,

Headline text

Is it acceptable to remove vandalism from talk pages? Does anyone know? Awadewit 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the answer is yes. Anyway, feel free to Be Bold and remove it. John Carter 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

The article suggests that Locke became interested in ideas being developed by the Royal Society when he was at Oxford in the 1650's. The Royal Society as such was not created until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. Would it not be better to clarify that the time when he was at Oxford refers to the "Invisble Society?"

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

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

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

Additional Influences

I am adding to the list of Locke's influences as they are key people to his ideas.

Francis Bacon - Inductive Reasoning

Pierre Gassendi - Proponent of Inductive Reasoning, Appealed to Locke (both were alike in beliefs)

Information obtained from the book: Faiella, Graham. (2006). John Locke: Champion of Modern Democracy (Philosophers of the Enlightenment). The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.

--ShadowSlave 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Locke influenced Robert Nozick. 128.164.242.14 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

See: Arthur H. Cash "The Lockean Psychology of Tristram Shandy" ELH 34 (9) 1964, pp. 395-417. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad900159 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ban The Use of Influence

The article states, "Locke's views influenced the American and French Revolutions." Would it kill you to put some detail into that paragraph? What does it mean to influence the American and French Revolutions? Burke, for example, denounced the French Revolution while praising the American Revolution. "Influenced" is such a weasel word. Pooua 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, both the American and the French revolutionaries liked what they read in the [[[Treatises of Government]]] and incorporated bits of it into their rhetoric. In fact, Declaration of Independence is written to satisfy the requirements for legitimate revolution spelled out in the Treatises. I'm not sure what Burke's denunciation of one and praise of the other has anything to do with it. RJC ^Talk 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point being, both Locke and Burke could be said to have influenced both the American and French revolutions, but that much does not reveal the significant differences of view or influence held by these two. In fact, it would not reveal any difference in views or influence held by any 2 people, no matter how greatly different those views and influences are. So, the article should have more information in it, instead of a vague, "Locke's views influenced..." Pooua 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Bennett link

I haven't read a lot of bennett's publication, nor studied locke in his original form, but i believe te link is valuable. The site states its rationale and methods (helping students understand the language, not modifying arguments). Jonathan Bennett (philosopher) is an academic authority of the period. The resource is linked or referred to by numerous university pages. And of course there is nothing commercial there, except for the url's suffix. So what's bad? (The only problem is, the Treatise files aren't available yet) trespassers william (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, [2]

• We don't put links to cliffnotes or sparknotes, nor do we put links to pages that people think are helpful. The problem is it's linkspam, added by an account that does nothing but add links from this site. RJC ^Talk 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One user's judgment and intentions are irrelevant, but "helpful" (and reliable) is exactly what's in links. Sparknotes, from what I've seen, is a commercial site, written by students, with no clear editorial policies. Our case is an expert resource, and while it is not peer reviewed, it gets positive reaction from other professionals. Would you cite something from Wikipedia:External links or another relevant page that condemn it? I agree the manner in which the link was first added should rise suspicion at any time, but there are obvious other factors. trespassers william (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bennett Locke link (which has been there for a long time) is a link to two of Locke's works - to that and nothing else. It is non-standard only in that the works appear in versions that have been modified (not dumbed down) so as to be more easily readable by today's readers. I can't see why this is contrary to the spirit and intention of Wikipedia. --Jonathan Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by I1cDcet (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see why professor Bennett has chosen the ECHU of all books to make 'more easily readable'. While some historical philosophical literature is certainly difficult to understand for today's younger readers, Locke's work is surely at the very bottom of that list. Whatever Bennett's reasons may have been, the project as such is too controversial to justify placing a link to it.Dolly1612 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased

Pardon me if this has been said before, but does it not seem slightly biased to say "greatly influenced?" It is an encyclopedia, and even if it IS true that he had high influence in science, it seems that there should be a different word used. G man yo (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --Beaker342 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we use weasel words? It seems to me that it matters only whether it's true or not. And if it's true, then we can find a reference in some book on Locke by some respectable scholar to support the claim. That ought to be enough. The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shouldn't prevent it from saying that someone had great influence if it's a fact that he did, on the contrary in that case it ought to inform the reader of this fact. --140.180.21.96 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The word "liberal" is used in several senses, many of them contradictory. One of its definitions is "wanting or allowing a lot of political and economic freedom and supporting gradual social, political or religious change" [3]. In that sense, he is the father of liberalism. The term "classical liberal", while more specific, is not very widely used outside of classical liberal contexts. Using the word "liberal" to denote a member of the Liberal Democrats is a relatively UK-specific phenomenon, I doubt many readers will interpret the lead as saying he is the father of their party. Gabbe (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whigs

"Though Locke was associated with the influential Whigs, his ideas about natural rights and government are today considered quite revolutionary for that period in English history." This is to misunderstand the nature of the Whig position in the seventeenth century. It was revolutionary and shocking to contemporaries. The facet of smug, self-satisfied Whiggery only came to the fore with the exercise of power, particularly Walpole two generations later. The 'influential Whigs' of Locke's time (Algernon Sidney, Shaftesbury) were revolutionary so it is misleading to start the proposition with 'Though....' .Jatrius (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There were both radical and moderate Whigs. The former were responsible for the Monmouth Rebellion, and quickly fell into political irrelevance following its failure. Those Whigs who made common cause with the Tories to bring William of Orange into England were far more moderate. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still erroneous to talk of crystallised parties in this age. The term 'Party' itself was viewed only in a pejorative sense. Far easier to talk of Court and Country as party identifiers. Those who clung to the term Whig in the 1680s were most definitely revolutionary in their outlook and that includes the entirety of James II's reign and the loathing that William III maintained towards the majority of them despite their championing of his cause.Jatrius (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Every Locke scholar I have read who made reference to Locke's political associations has associated him with the Whigs. This includes those from the Cambridge school, which has a particularly pedantic approach to declaring certain words anachronistic and forbidding anyone their use. I haven't seen any reliable source that objects to calling those portions of the English aristocracy who worked to bring William of Orange into England (who weren't Tories) Whigs; if any exists, it seems that it is a minority view. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Introductory statements

"He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas."

Change to

"He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas."

There is a problem with wiki in general and it has serious implications here. As a Christian philosopher how could Locke fail to make claims as one? That is, how could he go against Christian philosophy? So, either we drop the entire section of Christian philosophy since so many Christians hold different philosophical views or we fix this sentence. "Locke, as a Christian philosopher, held that there were no innate ideas" would be the correct. After all, what exactly Descartes' religious views were is contentious, not Locke's. --75.185.43.130 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no two books that discuss Locke's religious views agree, I would say that his views are highly contentious. Conscience is an innate idea and has certainly been central to Christian thought for most of the last two thousand years. A denial of conscience was out of step with the thought of Christians at Locke's time, at least. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

republicanism

due to reverts by RJC i am rising the issue of Locke's republicanism. i do not know why rjc consider this issue as "hotly disputed" while social contract theory is at the core of republican way of thinking. shouldn't this be removed as well following rjc line? if this is hotly disputed issue there should be some literature on it - thus i call for references. --discourseur 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone outside of the Cambridge school of historiography who does call Locke a republican. He is more often associated with the beginnings of liberalism. As for references: Richard Cox, Locke on War and Peace; Ruth Grant, John Locke's Liberalism; Peter Josephson, The Great Art of Government; Harvey Mansfield, Taming the Prince; Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism; Martin Seliger, The Liberal Politics of John Locke; A. John Simmons, On the Edge of Anarchy and The Lockean Theory of Rights; Alex Tuckness, Locke and the Legislative Point of View; Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke and Equality; Michael Zuckert, Launching Liberalism; among others. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

in given references there is nothing that challenges republicanism of locke. quite opposite it is liberalism that is the issue that have to be disputed. i call for references that challenge republicanism. --discourseur 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. These sources say that Locke was a liberal. Republicanism is contrasted with liberalism. Whether distinguished by the question of what constitutes "liberty" or by hostility toward monarchy, they put Locke on the liberal side of the divide. Those who argue for the view that Locke was a typical republican argue against these authors; these authors argue against those who put forward the view that Locke was a typical republican. Pocock attacks the view that Locke is a liberal, strongly suggesting the existence of people who say that he is; "The Myth of John Locke and the Obsession with Liberalism," in John Locke: Papers read at a Clark Library Seminar, 10 December 1977, by J. G. A. Pocock and Richard Ashcraft (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1980). You can say that it is wrong to call Locke a liberal, not a republican, but you cannot say that there is no dispute. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

so here you are. if there is about liberalism in article on locke, there should be also about republicanism. or there should be none of them. --discourseur 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But liberalism isn't mentioned at length in the article. Aside from a brief reference in the opening paragraphs, which could be augmented with a parallel reference to classical republicanism, it is noted that he exerted an influence "on a classical republicanism and much later on a modern liberalism." The section on the Constitution of Carolinas notes that enemies of liberalism have also been critical of Locke. These are the only mentions of liberalism in the entire thing. Nowhere in the article is he called a liberal: the word is entirely absent from the section on "Political Theory." RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

so opening paragraph should be complemented with republicanism and "see also" as well. --discourseur 09:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Personhood theory

It is misleading to say that Locke thought the body was important to the identification of the Self - he clearly states that it is consciousness which solely identifies the person - see paragraph 16 of 'Of Identity and Diversity' in Essays. He was probably the first philosopher to separate psychological aspects of the person and identify them as being the criteria of personhood. See Mary Ford, 'The Personhood Paradox and The 'Right to Die Medical Law Review, 13, Spring 2005, p.85.

vintage_beanpole. 29-08-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage beanpole (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Influences in the modern world

John lock has experienced a resurgence in importance in todays world, and there are a few places where this has been especially true.

One interesting place john locke has appeared in is the philosophical American Lincoln Douglas debate, even leading to a quote from internationally renowned Tom Sanford, "John Locke; more than a man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsanford (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished editing.

I put information used on my History Fair, to contribute to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savo187 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Locked

This article is locked. lololololololol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.223.223 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

government

that they wanted people to give up some of there right so they could do what they wanted .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.3.216 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No "popular culture" section?

I'd've expected that Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" (actually, maybe even the saga on the whole) was notable enough to mention in this article... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  By Herman Nomeman
• 
  By Michael Dahl
• 
  By John Greenhill
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller

I'm replacing the lead image with the first one, which is a higher res version of the same portrait. Dcoetzee 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke on Personal Identity / Self

The section "Self" currently uses page numbers to refer to go public domain text, so it's hard to verify the quotes. But regardless, traditionally Locke is said to believe that the self is merely the continuity of consciousness, and that substance is irrelevant. The section on Self uses quotes from Locke discussing the notion of "man", which is completely different than that of self and personal identity. See An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chap. xxvii: Of identity and diversity, paragraphs 10-11, 23-26.

• "The question being what makes the same person, and not whether it be the same identical substance, which always thinks in the same person, which in this case matters not at all. Different substances, by the same consciousness (where they do partake in it) being united into one person; as well by different bodies, by the same life are united into one animal, whose identity is preserved, in that change of substances, by the unity of one continued life. For it being the same consciousness that makes a man be himself to himself, personal identity depends on that only, whether it be annexed only to one individual substance, or can be continued in a succession of several substances. For as far as any intelligent being can repeat the idea of any past action with the same consciousness it had of it at first, and with the same consciousness it has of any present action; so far it is the same personal self. (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 10) [emphasis preserved]
• "Thus we see the substance, whereof personal self consisted at one time, may be varied at another, without the change of personal identity: there being no question about the same person, though the limbs, which but now were a part of it, be cut off. Virtues have a limit." (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 11) [emphasis preserved]
• "Consciousness alone makes self. Nothing but consciousness can unite remote existences into the same person, the identity of the substance will not do it. For whatever substance there is, however framed, without consciousness, there is no person: and a carcass may be a person, as well as ny sort of substance be so without consciousness." (Essay, II, xxvii, paragraph 23) [emphasis preserved]

--Nathanmx (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Off topic gender reference

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

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

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

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

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

Exile in Holland

The section on Locke's life in Holland (1683-1689) could and should be amplified. Jim Powell published a good article[4] on Locke in The Freeman in 1996, reading in part:

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

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

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

Epitaph

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

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

I found this one [5] but it's too faint to read all the text. Still I made some corrections into the text in the article but left the "verification needed" tag intact. → Aethralis 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barriers to improving this article

There are two major barriers to improving this article. First, this article needs to be unlocked. Sure, it's funny that it's locked, but that's not a good reason for keeping it so; unlocking it would allow for more users to more easily improve it--and as I see it, this article really needs improving. That leads me to the second major barrier to improving the article: poor overall organization. To illustrate, first consider the article has to say about Locke's influence on political philosophy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In that spirit, I submit the following:

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

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

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

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

Tabula rasa?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of name request.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Royal Africa Company should be changed to Royal Africa Company

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

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

Edit request from Srettiws, 11 April 2010

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

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

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

Edit request from 98.195.120.196, 18 May 2010

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

Please revert this silly nationalistic edit.

Thank you.

Resolved

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

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

Edit request from 205.186.33.2, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

Locke and Slavery

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

Edit request from 201.159.193.138, 31 July 2010

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

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

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

Edit request from Drpatlines, 2 October 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Expand request on Theory of value and property

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

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

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

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

Karl Marx

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

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

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

Quotation

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

"Possessions" vs. "Pursuit of Happiness"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 10 July 2012

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

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

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

No tabula rasa in Locke's Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Locke/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well written, but in dire need of reference citations. Application for recognition as a Wikipedia:Good article candidates currently on hold pending resolution of items mentioned at Talk:John Locke#GA Nom. Badbilltucker 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Needs more inline citations. Some of the lists need to be converted to prose. Kaldari 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)