A review of David Sytsma's recent book Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
David Sytsma的新书《Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers》(纽约:牛津大学出版社，2017)。
{"title":"Review of David Sytsma's Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers","authors":"P. Connolly","doi":"10.5206/LS.2019.6246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2019.6246","url":null,"abstract":"A review of David Sytsma's recent book Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123996127","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 reveiw of Christopher Borsing's recent book Daniel Defoe and the Representation of Personal Identity (New York: Routledge, 2017).
克里斯托弗·波辛的新书《丹尼尔·笛福与个人同一性的再现》(纽约:劳特利奇出版社，2017年)。
{"title":"Review of Christopher Borsing's Daniel Defoe and the Representation of Personal Identity","authors":"Elizabeth R. Napier","doi":"10.5206/LS.2019.6245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2019.6245","url":null,"abstract":"A reveiw of Christopher Borsing's recent book Daniel Defoe and the Representation of Personal Identity (New York: Routledge, 2017).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122484241","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 review of John Willinsky’s recent book, The Intellectual Properties of Learning: A Prehistory from Saint Jerome to John Locke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
{"title":"Review of The Intellectual Properties of Learning: A Prehistory from Saint Jerome to John Locke by John Willinsky","authors":"R. Spinello","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.6200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.6200","url":null,"abstract":"A review of John Willinsky’s recent book, The Intellectual Properties of Learning: A Prehistory from Saint Jerome to John Locke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132160935","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 correction of an article originally published in vol 17 (2017). In 1675, the anonymous Letter to a Person of Quality was condemned in the House of Lords and ordered to be burned by the public hangman. A propagandistic work that has long been attributed to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and less certainly to his secretary John Locke, it traduced hard-line Anglican legislation considered in Parliament that year—namely the Test Bill, proposing that office-holders and MPs swear off political militancy and indeed any efforts to reform the Church and State. Careful examination of the text of the Letter, and that of one of its sources in the Reasons against the Bill for the Test, also circulated in 1675, reveals the presence of highly seditious passages of covert historical allegory. Hitherto un-noted by modern scholars, this allegory compared King Charles II to the weak and intermittently mad Henry VI, while agitating for armed revolt against a government made prey to popish and French captors. The discovery compels modification, through chronological revision and also re-assessment of the probability of Locke’s authorship of the Letter, of Richard Ashcraft’s picture of Shaftesbury and Locke as first-time revolutionaries for the cause of religious tolerance in the early 1680s. Even more significantly, it lends support to Ashcraft’s view of the nature and intent of duplicitous published writings from the Shaftesbury circle, whose members included Robert Ferguson, ‘the Plotter’ and pamphleteer at home in the world of skilled biblical hermeneutics. Cultivated for stealthy revolutionary purposes, these writings came with designs of engaging discrete reading networks within England’s culture of Protestant dissent.
{"title":"Shaftesbury, Locke, and Their Revolutionary Letter? [Corrigendum]","authors":"D. Deluna","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.6177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.6177","url":null,"abstract":"A correction of an article originally published in vol 17 (2017). \u0000In 1675, the anonymous Letter to a Person of Quality was condemned in the House of Lords and ordered to be burned by the public hangman. A propagandistic work that has long been attributed to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and less certainly to his secretary John Locke, it traduced hard-line Anglican legislation considered in Parliament that year—namely the Test Bill, proposing that office-holders and MPs swear off political militancy and indeed any efforts to reform the Church and State. Careful examination of the text of the Letter, and that of one of its sources in the Reasons against the Bill for the Test, also circulated in 1675, reveals the presence of highly seditious passages of covert historical allegory. Hitherto un-noted by modern scholars, this allegory compared King Charles II to the weak and intermittently mad Henry VI, while agitating for armed revolt against a government made prey to popish and French captors. The discovery compels modification, through chronological revision and also re-assessment of the probability of Locke’s authorship of the Letter, of Richard Ashcraft’s picture of Shaftesbury and Locke as first-time revolutionaries for the cause of religious tolerance in the early 1680s. Even more significantly, it lends support to Ashcraft’s view of the nature and intent of duplicitous published writings from the Shaftesbury circle, whose members included Robert Ferguson, ‘the Plotter’ and pamphleteer at home in the world of skilled biblical hermeneutics. Cultivated for stealthy revolutionary purposes, these writings came with designs of engaging discrete reading networks within England’s culture of Protestant dissent.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129546317","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 review of Andrew Shrock’s recent book, Thomas Reid and the Problem of Secondary Qualities (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2018).
安德鲁·施罗克的新书《托马斯·里德和次要品质的问题》(英国爱丁堡:爱丁堡大学出版社，2018)。
{"title":"Review of Thomas Reid and the Problem of Secondary Qualities by Andrew Shrock","authors":"A. Crosby","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.5448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.5448","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000A review of Andrew Shrock’s recent book, Thomas Reid and the Problem of Secondary Qualities (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2018). \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114263923","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}
The purpose of this paper is to challenge the wide-spread belief that Locke advocated for the disposition of native peoples’ land due to their savagery or because they used land wastefully and inefficiently. These represent two sides of what I call the punishment thesis. Not only are there are good textual reasons in the Second Treatise (and elsewhere) to think that Locke was not interested in punishing native peoples for violating the natural law, but the history of Locke’s involvement with the Carolina colony also tells a remarkably different story—namely, Locke appears to direct the brunt of his moral argument against European settlers, not the native peoples.
{"title":"One Body of People","authors":"Brian Smith","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.423","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The purpose of this paper is to challenge the wide-spread belief that Locke advocated for the disposition of native peoples’ land due to their savagery or because they used land wastefully and inefficiently. These represent two sides of what I call the punishment thesis. Not only are there are good textual reasons in the Second Treatise (and elsewhere) to think that Locke was not interested in punishing native peoples for violating the natural law, but the history of Locke’s involvement with the Carolina colony also tells a remarkably different story—namely, Locke appears to direct the brunt of his moral argument against European settlers, not the native peoples. \u0000","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129452664","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 memorial and appreciation for the founding editor of Locke Studies and The Locke Newsletter, Roland Hall (York).
纪念和感谢洛克研究和洛克通讯的创始编辑，罗兰霍尔(约克)。
{"title":"Roland Hall","authors":"T. Stanton","doi":"10.5206/ls.2018.5769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2018.5769","url":null,"abstract":"A memorial and appreciation for the founding editor of Locke Studies and The Locke Newsletter, Roland Hall (York).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117232080","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 review of Jonathan S. Marko's recent book Measuring the Distance between Locke and Toland: Reason, Revelation, and Rejection During the Locke-Stillingfleet Debate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications).
{"title":"Review of Measuring the Distance between Locke and Toland by Jonathan S. Marko","authors":"Stewart Duncan","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.5427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.5427","url":null,"abstract":"A review of Jonathan S. Marko's recent book Measuring the Distance between Locke and Toland: Reason, Revelation, and Rejection During the Locke-Stillingfleet Debate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126476661","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}
It is often claimed that classification, on Locke’s view, proceeds by attending to the similarities between things,1 and it is widely argued that nothing about the sensible similarities between things determines how we are to sort them, in which case sorting substances at the phenomenal level must be arbitrary. However, acquaintance with the “internal” or hidden qualities of substances might yet reveal objective boundaries. Citing what I refer to as the Watch passage [henceforth Watches], many commentators claim that classification at the microphysical level must also be arbitrary. They conclude that sorting is arbitrary at any level of description. I refer to this as the standard reading of Locke on classification. In this paper I argue that Locke does not claim that sorting is arbitrary, either at the phenomenal level, or at the microphysical level. First, Locke does not claim in Watches that sorting is arbitrary at the microphysical level. The existence or nonexistence of objective boundaries at the microphysical level is not Watches’ topic and the passage is in fact silent on that question. Here, the standard reading mistakes a claim about the nature of the task of locating “specific differences” for a claim about the nature of the task of classification. This diagnosis proves instructive, for I argue that a similar conflation underwrites the standard reading’s claim that sorting at the phenomenal level must be arbitrary. Far from arbitrarily choosing how to sort things in terms of their phenomenal similarities, Locke thought that the mind simply follows nature’s lead. This characterization of the mind’s activity, I go on to argue, accords well with Locke’s claim that species are the workmanship of the understanding.
{"title":"Strings, Physies, and Hogs Bristles","authors":"Allison Kuklok","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.1512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.1512","url":null,"abstract":"It is often claimed that classification, on Locke’s view, proceeds by attending to the similarities between things,1 and it is widely argued that nothing about the sensible similarities between things determines how we are to sort them, in which case sorting substances at the phenomenal level must be arbitrary. However, acquaintance with the “internal” or hidden qualities of substances might yet reveal objective boundaries. Citing what I refer to as the Watch passage [henceforth Watches], many commentators claim that classification at the microphysical level must also be arbitrary. They conclude that sorting is arbitrary at any level of description. I refer to this as the standard reading of Locke on classification. \u0000In this paper I argue that Locke does not claim that sorting is arbitrary, either at the phenomenal level, or at the microphysical level. First, Locke does not claim in Watches that sorting is arbitrary at the microphysical level. The existence or nonexistence of objective boundaries at the microphysical level is not Watches’ topic and the passage is in fact silent on that question. Here, the standard reading mistakes a claim about the nature of the task of locating “specific differences” for a claim about the nature of the task of classification. This diagnosis proves instructive, for I argue that a similar conflation underwrites the standard reading’s claim that sorting at the phenomenal level must be arbitrary. Far from arbitrarily choosing how to sort things in terms of their phenomenal similarities, Locke thought that the mind simply follows nature’s lead. This characterization of the mind’s activity, I go on to argue, accords well with Locke’s claim that species are the workmanship of the understanding.","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132372312","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}
{"title":"Review of The Well-Ordered Universe: The Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish by Deborah Boyle","authors":"David Cunning","doi":"10.5206/LS.2018.3792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5206/LS.2018.3792","url":null,"abstract":"A review of Deborah Boyle's recent book The Well-Ordered Universe: The Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017).","PeriodicalId":165811,"journal":{"name":"Locke Studies","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123089426","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：