{"title":"A Review of Locke on Persons and Personal Identity by Ruth Boeker","authors":"Joshua Harry Haywood","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.17483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.17483","url":null,"abstract":"A review of Ruth Boeker's recent book Locke on Persons and Personal Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). ","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"372 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140473157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
John Locke’s role in the advent of modernity has been debated widely. His work has been (ab)used by those arguing from libertarian, democratic, communitarian, socialist, feminist, or postcolonial points of view, either portraying him as a forefather of their preferred political theory or as an antagonist to their avowed political and philosophical goals. In this paper, we are primarily concerned with highlighting the importance of the executive’s prerogative in Locke’s philosophy, as we argue that this concept, often banished to the side-lines, is indeed central to Locke’s political theory. This partial neglect entails that some of the most popular readings of Locke are potentially based on faulty premises. We focus on how Locke’s prerogative is antithetical to the project of seeing Locke as a forefather of libertarianism. Furthermore, this paper’s arguments could also support challenges to interpretations of Locke as an early and important proponent of democracy. Rather than seeking to find support for modern theories through anachronistic and dubious readings of Locke, we focus on how he conceived of an exceedingly strong executive whose actions are exclusively restricted by the public good. We conclude that there is good reason to consider his philosophy proto-utilitarian, something that further highlights the conflict with libertarianism. As such, we conclude that libertarian or democratic theories postulating Locke as their direct predecessor should be re-examined to account for these findings.
{"title":"Locke on Prerogative","authors":"Philipp Schönegger, H. Sætra","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.16399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.16399","url":null,"abstract":"John Locke’s role in the advent of modernity has been debated widely. His work has been (ab)used by those arguing from libertarian, democratic, communitarian, socialist, feminist, or postcolonial points of view, either portraying him as a forefather of their preferred political theory or as an antagonist to their avowed political and philosophical goals. In this paper, we are primarily concerned with highlighting the importance of the executive’s prerogative in Locke’s philosophy, as we argue that this concept, often banished to the side-lines, is indeed central to Locke’s political theory. This partial neglect entails that some of the most popular readings of Locke are potentially based on faulty premises. We focus on how Locke’s prerogative is antithetical to the project of seeing Locke as a forefather of libertarianism. Furthermore, this paper’s arguments could also support challenges to interpretations of Locke as an early and important proponent of democracy. Rather than seeking to find support for modern theories through anachronistic and dubious readings of Locke, we focus on how he conceived of an exceedingly strong executive whose actions are exclusively restricted by the public good. We conclude that there is good reason to consider his philosophy proto-utilitarian, something that further highlights the conflict with libertarianism. As such, we conclude that libertarian or democratic theories postulating Locke as their direct predecessor should be re-examined to account for these findings.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115664900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
According to Locke, scripture says nothing about the resurrection of the same body. We will be resurrected. But in what sense can resurrected Jane be the “same” as living Jane? Throughout his thinking, Locke holds that sameness of body and/or sameness of soul are not required for the resurrection of “the same Jane.” Sameness of person is required. Locke’s theory of personal identity was ground-breaking in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was provoking and resulted in a wave of critical responses. His distinction between “man” and “person” is important for his account of personal identity, but the distinction was hard for his contemporaries to understand. The correspondence between Locke and Edward Stillingfleet, for example, shows that for Stillingfleet the distinction between “man” and “person” is artificial. Having read this correspondence, Winch Holdsworth attacks Locke in a sermon in 1719 arguing that Locke denied the resurrection altogether. Catharine Trotter Cockburn tries to defend Locke in her Vindication. Despite her clear understanding of the distinctions applied by Locke, she too struggles with what to make of a person.
{"title":"Sameness, Persons, and the Resurrection","authors":"Anita Van der Bos","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.15214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.15214","url":null,"abstract":"According to Locke, scripture says nothing about the resurrection of the same body. We will be resurrected. But in what sense can resurrected Jane be the “same” as living Jane? Throughout his thinking, Locke holds that sameness of body and/or sameness of soul are not required for the resurrection of “the same Jane.” Sameness of person is required. Locke’s theory of personal identity was ground-breaking in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was provoking and resulted in a wave of critical responses. His distinction between “man” and “person” is important for his account of personal identity, but the distinction was hard for his contemporaries to understand. The correspondence between Locke and Edward Stillingfleet, for example, shows that for Stillingfleet the distinction between “man” and “person” is artificial. Having read this correspondence, Winch Holdsworth attacks Locke in a sermon in 1719 arguing that Locke denied the resurrection altogether. Catharine Trotter Cockburn tries to defend Locke in her Vindication. Despite her clear understanding of the distinctions applied by Locke, she too struggles with what to make of a person.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126194297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Locke holds that the experience of voluntary action is the sole origin of the concept of causal power. What is it about this experience that compels Locke to draw this conclusion? I think this question should puzzle scholars a great deal more than it has. There are three existing interpretations of Locke’s position. The first explanation holds that Locke appeals to voluntary action because he takes this experience to reveal a necessary connection between volition and action; the second holds that Locke is driven to this view by a prior commitment to the claim that mind is inherently active or that only mind is active; and the third holds that Locke takes reflection on the experience of voluntary action to reveal that in virtue of which volition brings about action. However, as I argue, these readings of Locke are inconsistent with the parsimony of his theory of causation and ignore the methodological demands of his empiricism. I submit that, according to Locke, the experience of acting voluntarily, or, equally, the feeling of bringing about change in the world, is a uniquely suitable origin in that its purely qualitative features mirror the characteristics that he deems essential to the concept of causal power.
{"title":"Locke, Active Power, and a Puzzle about Ascription","authors":"Joshua M. Wood","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.10634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.10634","url":null,"abstract":"Locke holds that the experience of voluntary action is the sole origin of the concept of causal power. What is it about this experience that compels Locke to draw this conclusion? I think this question should puzzle scholars a great deal more than it has. There are three existing interpretations of Locke’s position. The first explanation holds that Locke appeals to voluntary action because he takes this experience to reveal a necessary connection between volition and action; the second holds that Locke is driven to this view by a prior commitment to the claim that mind is inherently active or that only mind is active; and the third holds that Locke takes reflection on the experience of voluntary action to reveal that in virtue of which volition brings about action. However, as I argue, these readings of Locke are inconsistent with the parsimony of his theory of causation and ignore the methodological demands of his empiricism. I submit that, according to Locke, the experience of acting voluntarily, or, equally, the feeling of bringing about change in the world, is a uniquely suitable origin in that its purely qualitative features mirror the characteristics that he deems essential to the concept of causal power.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130572652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I examine Locke’s criticism of the view that some species of natural objects are determined by real essences, a view I call species realism. Most commentators have focused either on Locke’s putative objections to the realist’s claim that species determining real essences exist or on his semantic case against the assumption that our species terms can refer to real essences that determine species. I identify another objection, which, I argue, is independent from both of these lines of criticism. This objection is essentially practical. It is based on the claim that adopting species realism has detrimental practical consequences: it undermines, Locke believes, our ability to sort particular natural objects into species. This alone, he argues, is already sufficient to set aside and ignore species realism when trying to sort objects into species.
{"title":"\"Wholly Useless and Unserviceable to Knowledge\"","authors":"David Wörner","doi":"10.5206/ls.2023.8331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2023.8331","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I examine Locke’s criticism of the view that some species of natural objects are determined by real essences, a view I call species realism. Most commentators have focused either on Locke’s putative objections to the realist’s claim that species determining real essences exist or on his semantic case against the assumption that our species terms can refer to real essences that determine species. I identify another objection, which, I argue, is independent from both of these lines of criticism. This objection is essentially practical. It is based on the claim that adopting species realism has detrimental practical consequences: it undermines, Locke believes, our ability to sort particular natural objects into species. This alone, he argues, is already sufficient to set aside and ignore species realism when trying to sort objects into species.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"520 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123131943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a review of Marco Barducci's recent book Hugo Grotius and the Century of Revolution, 1613-1718.
这是马可·巴杜奇的新书《雨果·格劳秀斯与革命的世纪，1613-1718》的书评。
{"title":"Review of Barducci's Hugo Grotius and the Century of Revolution, 1613-1718","authors":"D. Klimchuk","doi":"10.5206/ls.2022.14638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2022.14638","url":null,"abstract":"This is a review of Marco Barducci's recent book Hugo Grotius and the Century of Revolution, 1613-1718.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129757498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) comprises John Locke’s mature thoughts on religious toleration. In it, Locke offers three political arguments against state religious coercion. He argues that it is impossible, impermissible, and inadvisable for the civil magistrate to enforce ‘true religion,’ which Locke defines as the ‘inward and full persuasion of the mind’ (Works, 6:10). Notwithstanding the various internecine conflicts within Christianity, conflicts which motivated Locke’s concern with toleration, all of the many-splendored sects of Christianity nonetheless share the notion that orthodoxy (correct belief) is required for salvation. Since the early days of Christianity, orthodoxy has represented the lowest-common-denominator obligation of adherents to Christianity. Locke’s political arguments in the Letter, at least in their first instance, assume an orthodox definition of “true religion.” This is likewise true of those who have either defended or criticized Locke’s arguments in the secondary literature. In contrast to Locke and his commentators, we will argue that the dominant characterization of “true religion” globally and throughout history does not concern correct religious belief as much as it concerns correct religious practice, or orthopraxy. Even though it has not received as much attention in the literature, Locke does discuss orthopraxy–what he calls ‘outward worship’–at length in the second half of the Letter (Works, 6:29-39). We will demonstrate how versions of all three political arguments for toleration can be redeployed to constrain the power of the magistrate within an orthoprax conception of true religion.
{"title":"Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Locke’s Arguments for Toleration","authors":"Bryan Hall, E. Ferg","doi":"10.5206/ls.2022.15111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2022.15111","url":null,"abstract":"A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) comprises John Locke’s mature thoughts on religious toleration. In it, Locke offers three political arguments against state religious coercion. He argues that it is impossible, impermissible, and inadvisable for the civil magistrate to enforce ‘true religion,’ which Locke defines as the ‘inward and full persuasion of the mind’ (Works, 6:10). Notwithstanding the various internecine conflicts within Christianity, conflicts which motivated Locke’s concern with toleration, all of the many-splendored sects of Christianity nonetheless share the notion that orthodoxy (correct belief) is required for salvation. Since the early days of Christianity, orthodoxy has represented the lowest-common-denominator obligation of adherents to Christianity. Locke’s political arguments in the Letter, at least in their first instance, assume an orthodox definition of “true religion.” This is likewise true of those who have either defended or criticized Locke’s arguments in the secondary literature. In contrast to Locke and his commentators, we will argue that the dominant characterization of “true religion” globally and throughout history does not concern correct religious belief as much as it concerns correct religious practice, or orthopraxy. Even though it has not received as much attention in the literature, Locke does discuss orthopraxy–what he calls ‘outward worship’–at length in the second half of the Letter (Works, 6:29-39). We will demonstrate how versions of all three political arguments for toleration can be redeployed to constrain the power of the magistrate within an orthoprax conception of true religion.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125601697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents and transcribes a newly identified John Locke manuscript – an index Locke made of Anton Deusing’s De motu cordis et sanguinis itemque de lacte ac nutrimento foetus in utero, dissertationes (Groningen, 1655). Deusing (1612–1666) was a polymath and medical eclectic with a scholastic predisposition who wrote numerous medical texts in the 1650s and 1660s. Locke owned and read several of these works, taking notes from them, and indexing at least two of them during his medical research at Oxford in the mid-1660s. The recovery of this manuscript further underlines Locke’s own medical eclecticism at this time, highlighting the contrast between his views in this part of his career and the empiricism he later came to evince.
本文介绍并抄录了一份新发现的约翰·洛克手稿——洛克对安东·德辛的《子宫内胎儿的营养状况》(De motu cordis et sanguinis itemque De lacte ac nutrimento胎儿)论文的索引(格罗宁根，1655)。Deusing(1612-1666)是一位博学的医学折衷主义者，有学术倾向，在1650年代和1660年代写了许多医学文献。洛克拥有并阅读了其中的几本著作，在其中做了笔记，并在1660年代中期他在牛津大学进行医学研究时为其中至少两本作了索引。手稿的恢复进一步强调了洛克在这个时候的医学折衷主义，突出了他在这部分职业生涯中的观点和他后来证明的经验主义之间的对比。
{"title":"Locke’s Reading of Anton Deusing – An Unrecorded Manuscript Index","authors":"J. Walmsley","doi":"10.5206/ls.2022.14798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2022.14798","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents and transcribes a newly identified John Locke manuscript – an index Locke made of Anton Deusing’s De motu cordis et sanguinis itemque de lacte ac nutrimento foetus in utero, dissertationes (Groningen, 1655). Deusing (1612–1666) was a polymath and medical eclectic with a scholastic predisposition who wrote numerous medical texts in the 1650s and 1660s. Locke owned and read several of these works, taking notes from them, and indexing at least two of them during his medical research at Oxford in the mid-1660s. The recovery of this manuscript further underlines Locke’s own medical eclecticism at this time, highlighting the contrast between his views in this part of his career and the empiricism he later came to evince.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124385081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I contend that Locke is both a realist and a skeptic regarding the mind-independent bodies which are causally responsible for our ideas of sense. Although he frequently indicates that we have experiential knowledge of these bodies, I argue that this was not his considered position. In support of this conclusion I turn: first, to the basic contours of his accounts of knowledge and perception; second, to his argument for the existence of the material world; and third, to his discussions of judgment and probability. Locke’s considered position, I contend, is that instances of veridical perception do not yield genuine instances of knowledge. Rather, these perceptual encounters give rise to empirical judgments which enjoy a high degree of probability. While this prevents them from being suitable objects of knowledge, since Locke thinks that we can be nearly certain of their truth, he contends that we should not hesitate to think, speak and act as if they were instances of knowledge. I further argue that this account provides us with a more satisfying explanation of Locke’s dismissive attitude towards the skeptical hypotheses which appear throughout the Essay.
{"title":"Locke's Skeptical Realism","authors":"C. Conn","doi":"10.5206/ls.2022.15152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2022.15152","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I contend that Locke is both a realist and a skeptic regarding the mind-independent bodies which are causally responsible for our ideas of sense. Although he frequently indicates that we have experiential knowledge of these bodies, I argue that this was not his considered position. In support of this conclusion I turn: first, to the basic contours of his accounts of knowledge and perception; second, to his argument for the existence of the material world; and third, to his discussions of judgment and probability. Locke’s considered position, I contend, is that instances of veridical perception do not yield genuine instances of knowledge. Rather, these perceptual encounters give rise to empirical judgments which enjoy a high degree of probability. While this prevents them from being suitable objects of knowledge, since Locke thinks that we can be nearly certain of their truth, he contends that we should not hesitate to think, speak and act as if they were instances of knowledge. I further argue that this account provides us with a more satisfying explanation of Locke’s dismissive attitude towards the skeptical hypotheses which appear throughout the Essay.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115960038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As many readers of Locke Studies are aware, the long-awaited publication of a scholarly edition of Locke’s published Abrégé and the transcription of an English “Epitome” of An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Essay) should be published in the near future. Both of these documents are tantalizing for aiding in the interpretation of the Essay because they are the author’s own efforts to clarify the argument and design of his great work prior to publication. This short note briefly summarizes the evidence for the superiority of the “Epitome” over the Abrégé and suggests several ways in which a clearer understanding of these documents could contribute to a more accurate reading of the Essay.
{"title":"Discussion: An Advertisement for the publication of Abridgements of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Other Philosophical Writings, 1672-1689, ed. J.R. Milton","authors":"Rafael Major, Svetozar Minkov","doi":"10.5206/ls.2022.14699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2022.14699","url":null,"abstract":"As many readers of Locke Studies are aware, the long-awaited publication of a scholarly edition of Locke’s published Abrégé and the transcription of an English “Epitome” of An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Essay) should be published in the near future. Both of these documents are tantalizing for aiding in the interpretation of the Essay because they are the author’s own efforts to clarify the argument and design of his great work prior to publication. This short note briefly summarizes the evidence for the superiority of the “Epitome” over the Abrégé and suggests several ways in which a clearer understanding of these documents could contribute to a more accurate reading of the Essay.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121769837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：