| Revision as of 22:33, 16 January 2007 editAytakin (talk | contribs)1,008 edits →Cyrus the Great?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:01, 1 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:John Locke/Archive 2) (bot |
| (711 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{FailedGA|21 October 2006}} |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Top|core=yes}} |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
{{philosophy}} |
|
|
|
| action1date = 21 October 2006 |
|
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Philrelig}} |
|
|
|
| action1link = Talk:John Locke/Archive 1#GA Nom |
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 80368693 |
|
|
| currentstatus = FGAN |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Locke, John|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Top|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|political=yes|modern=yes|epistemology=yes|mind=yes|metaphysics=yes|social=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Somerset|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|anglicanism=yes|anglicanism-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|needs-image=yes|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:John Locke/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inaccurate statement concerning monarchy and Adam == |
|
== Vandalism Removed == |
|
|
There was some rubbish about bananas and animals in the intro. I deleted the offending sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God." This sentence, with a citation to ''Two Treatises on Government,'' states the opposite of what Locke was arguing in that book. He is refuting an author who believed in absolute monarchy based on the idea that fatherhood was the basis of absolute rule and that Adam was the first father and thus the first monarch. Locke masterfully refutes this logic page after page in the book cited leading him to oppose even the idea that Adam was monarch over Eve, which is the opposite of what is stated in this article. I suggest this sentence be removed. ] (]) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== More Vandalism == |
|
|
the answers.com wikipedia entry has John Locke's father listed as 'Doushe Bag'. Please change that if you are able to, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Your point seems perfectly reasonable. You can do the edit yourself, providing the above argumentation for other editors. ] (]) 13:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
==What did Locke say?== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Locke is father of classical liberalism, not all liberalism. == |
|
''In Chapter xxvii of book II Locke discusses personal identity, and the idea of a person. What he says here has shaped our thought and provoked debate ever since.'' |
|
|
there is no such thing as John Locke |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As this article points out very little, there is ] and ]. From the point of thoughts, those are pretty distinct streams. The modern progressive liberalism is quite different from the one that Locke advocated for and which we call classical liberalism. |
|
|
I propose this to be clearly stated and better distinguished otherwise people tend to mix it. ] (]) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dates of Birth and Death Formatting == |
|
For god's sake man, what did Locke say! You just leave me hanging like that. ==Modifications== |
|
|
|
Since Locke's dates of birth and death (29 August 1632 and 28 October 1704 respectively) are established to be in the Julian calendar, would it be appropriate to add the equivalent New Style dates in the Gregorian calendar (8 September 1632 and 8 November 1704 respectively)? ] (]) 07:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Locke‘s Relationship to Spinoza == |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the article, as it stands, acknowledges some influence from Spinoza (via the argument of Rebecca Newberger Goldstein), it remains quite vague. Wim Klever, in his 2012 article '''"Locke’s Disguised Spinozism"''', reconstructs Locke’s immense indebtedness to Spinoza in "the fields of theology, physics, epistemology, ethics, and politics" and arrives at the – convincing but perhaps overstated – conclusion that "Locke’s philosophy … is, in all its foundational concepts and its headlines, a kind of reproduction of Spinoza’s work." I believe it ought to be mentioned in the article that this is at least a tenable position and that an understanding of Spinoza is crucial for the understanding of Locke. |
|
there needs to be mention here of his view on the social contract. ] 18:32, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article in question was published in two parts in the journal ''Revista Conatus – Filosofia de Spinoza'' in 2012 but can be found in full online: https://huenemanniac.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/lockes-disguised-spinozism.pdf ] (]) 14:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I wonder whether mentioining that hew was much influenced by Polish brethren thoughts (he had their works in his library) ] |
|
|
They need to mention the Earl of Shaftesbury. |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Perhaps overstated" is correct. Academics present fascinating novel arguments about well established subjects all the time, and it is not the role of an encyclopedia article to collate them all unless they become influential in the literature. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
: There is now a link to Lord Shaftesbury's page. --] 11:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::If you say that the article isn't influential enough to be included, I am fine with it (although I don’t know what the criterion for that would be). In my opinion, a relationship of some sort between the two is undeniable when one has read the evidence that Klever compiles, yet my opinion can hardly be enough. ] (]) 15:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We're a tertiary source, and we ideally synthesize what is said across secondary sources. To illustrate, it would indicate that Klever's position would be due for inclusion and citation here if his article has seen significant citation in later works, especially in tertiary sources, edited volumes or monographs. Generally, whether others working in the field have been vocally inspired by his ideas, perhaps even in their disagreeing with them <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2024 == |
|
== Some flaws == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|John Locke|answered=yes}} |
|
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." |
|
|
|
There are two Republicanism sidebars in this article. ] (]) 17:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
: 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. -- ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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…" ] 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. --] 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. |
|
|
--] 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.--] 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." ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] 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. ] 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 about the ''Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' was also posted a couple of months ago. If the person who inserted it in the Misplaced Pages article is not (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 Misplaced Pages licence. --] 23:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: The addition is also long enough that it might be better located in the '']'' article (currently a stub) than in the main Locke page. This is assuming, of course, that Prof. Perry doesn't want it removed outright. -] 02:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deletion in Section on Two Treatises == |
|
|
There is a separate article for the '']'' (as there is for '']'' and '']''). 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. -] 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 ] Thanks! --] 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 as well. ] 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 |
|
|
] 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. --] (]) 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, 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. --] 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 ]. see also ]. i cant do it now, i have a test ] 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. ] 11:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To back up what I'm saying, see , which is about 50/50 political/non-political. ] 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. --] (]) 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is half of an article at ] 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. ] ] 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... ] ] 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.] 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.] 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Philosophy other than Politics== |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no mention of Locke's thought as regards ], ], ] 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 '']'', 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. --] 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. ] 18 July 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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)? ] 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. --] 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.] 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV bibliography == |
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for you to praise this or that scholar. --] 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.] 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.--] 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?] 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." --] 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Furthermore, the source is self-published and therefore of dubious reliability.--] 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.--] 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
sigh...someone has written of Locke's douchery and erections, among other things. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
While I am a neophyte when it comes to Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages, not to mention its accuracy. In short, all is back to normal. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Found some more vandalism; has been eliminated. ] 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GA Nom == |
|
|
This page has been nominated for ] 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 <cite>An Essay Concerning Human Understanding</cite> 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. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've started an approach that may apply to Misplaced Pages's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on ''in popular culture'' information. I started that last year while I raised ] to ] when I created ], which has become a ]. Recently I also created ] 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, ''']''' 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. --] 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Human nature == |
|
|
|
|
|
“Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance." |
|
|
|
|
|
No wonder Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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? ] 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unless you can cite a secondary source, this is all original synthesis, and is disqualified under WP:NOR. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for academic debates. --] 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. ] 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. --] 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cyrus the Great?== |
|
|
Why is ] 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 ] on 28 Nov.) ] 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. ] 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. --(]) | ] 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. ] ] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: How about this? John Locke said the following in his book ], "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. --(]) | ] 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. --] 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. --(]) | ] 22:33, 16 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 07:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. That kind of blatant nonsense is unnacceptable. |
|
|
--] 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 ] --] 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
"Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God." This sentence, with a citation to Two Treatises on Government, states the opposite of what Locke was arguing in that book. He is refuting an author who believed in absolute monarchy based on the idea that fatherhood was the basis of absolute rule and that Adam was the first father and thus the first monarch. Locke masterfully refutes this logic page after page in the book cited leading him to oppose even the idea that Adam was monarch over Eve, which is the opposite of what is stated in this article. I suggest this sentence be removed. 2601:249:447F:1960:4C7E:C02C:C6F2:C21A (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Since Locke's dates of birth and death (29 August 1632 and 28 October 1704 respectively) are established to be in the Julian calendar, would it be appropriate to add the equivalent New Style dates in the Gregorian calendar (8 September 1632 and 8 November 1704 respectively)? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
While the article, as it stands, acknowledges some influence from Spinoza (via the argument of Rebecca Newberger Goldstein), it remains quite vague. Wim Klever, in his 2012 article "Locke’s Disguised Spinozism", reconstructs Locke’s immense indebtedness to Spinoza in "the fields of theology, physics, epistemology, ethics, and politics" and arrives at the – convincing but perhaps overstated – conclusion that "Locke’s philosophy … is, in all its foundational concepts and its headlines, a kind of reproduction of Spinoza’s work." I believe it ought to be mentioned in the article that this is at least a tenable position and that an understanding of Spinoza is crucial for the understanding of Locke.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Done