Customer Reviews

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

On the list of thinkers who have exemplified what Brand Blanshard called the "rational temper," John Locke must surely place very high. The reader of this his most influential and important work will be constantly struck not only by his sane and sober approach to philosophical questions but indeed, as another reviewer has noted, by how commonplace his own proposed solutions have become.

It will be found that Locke, generally regarded as an "empiricist," is extremely hard to pigeonhole. Though rejecting (an earlier version of) the doctrine of "innate ideas" and insisting that all of our ideas come from or through sense-experience, he was clearly a "rationalist" as regards the nature of knowledge itself. Both modern empiricists and modern rationalists could benefit from a healthy infusion of his reasonable, even-handed tenor and uncommon common sense.

Also highly recommended is E.J. Lowe's _Locke On Human Understanding_, an excellent introduction and overview to this great work as well as a delightful and highly insightful attempt to show that many of Locke's positions are still defensible today (though perhaps in need of some modification). It is a handy companion to the present volume both for the beginner and for the longtime reader of Locke; even those who know Locke well (or think they do!) will find Lowe's work engaging and enlightening.

John Locke's 1698 "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" is one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy. It is a phenomenal enquiry into how and why people become functional individuals. Bringing into philosophy a developmental model of personal becoming, Locke drilled pre-Berkeleyan common sense into a growing capitalist nation, one which was already moving away from the absolutist model of government and viewing self in the world espoused by Thomas Hobbes in "Leviathan." While clearly building on and stepping on his predecessors, most notably Hobbes and Rene Descartes, Locke deals broadly with ideas, language, and how people come into knowledge, and sets the stage for a new phase of philosophy entering the 18th century.

Locke begins the "Essay" by rejecting and dispensing with the notion of "innate ideas," which basically says that we are born in possession of certain principles, elements of knowledge, or maxims that help us orient ourselves in the world. Through long and drawn out (one downside of Locke is his insistency on detail and repetition) examples and arguments, he attempts to prove that when we are born, we have absolutely nothing intelligence-wise, to recommend us. This is what is popularly referred to as the 'tabula rasa' theory, that when first born, our minds are like "empty cabinets" or "white sheets" of paper - which experience and experience only furnishes with our ideas about the world. His goal here is to get people to question their assumptions about the world, to ask questions and decide for themselves based on reason and experience, how best to interact with the world.

Locke says that the only two sources of all human knowledge are sensation (that information which is passively thrust upon our senses) and reflection (when we consider and think about that sense data, and about our own thoughts). From these "simple ideas," we are able to combine and recombine thoughts to form "complex ideas" and use clear and distinct language to express them to other people. This social aspect of this philosophy is something that really fascinated me about Locke. While focusing on the individual's growing base of knowledge, he is all the while trying to orient people to functioning in society. Saying that the end of all knowledge serves two purposes, viz., honouring God, and being morally responsible, Locke goes on to show how human life often works counter to these goals, with a view to correcting them.

Another of his famous formulations, one all too familiar to Americans, as part of our national idealism, is that the basic state of nature of humanity consists in the "pursuit of happiness." Compared to Hobbes, for whom the state of nature consisted in the attempt to attain greater and greater power over others, Locke's state of nature seems relatively benign - however, he goes to great lengths to show how the pursuit of happiness often leads to reckless and wanton behaviours, ultimately destructive both to self and society. The idea that we must examine our desires and discipline them to the greater good is something that many of us lose sight of, and is an element central to his system.

Briefly then, a couple of other items that might be of interest to someone thinking about picking up Locke's "Essay": His philosophy of language is one that still has currency and influence on linguistic theory all the way to Saussure and the post-structuralists; Locke's manner of addressing cultural and gender diversity is progressive, but vexed, which makes for fascinating work in trying to determine his stances toward non-white European males. Locke's constant invocation of gold in his examples can be maddening, which can only mean that there is some significance therein; and finally, his other hobby-horse, so-called "monstrous births" and their status in the human race bears heavily and still importantly on the debate over a woman's right to choose. All this and so much more awaits you - over 600 pages of Lockean goodness. Beware though, Locke is extremely repetitive and can get bogged down in what, for us to-day, may seem common sense notions. But this is quintessential reading, nonetheless, for everyone interested in the formation of the modern self.

Any search for this text will result in a plethora of commentaries upon it, whilst it itself seems almost doomed to take second place. The importance of this work to philosophy cannot be underestimated; Descartes is held in common perception to be the figure who changed the course of philosophy. Whilst it is true he may have dipped his toes in uncharted waters, Locke was the first to plunge in. Here we find human understanding stripped to its first principles and from there rebuilt in such a fashion as to purge the presumptions of our age. Locke recommends modesty to the philosopher and thinker throughout and in our current times this message might need restated. In a world, which owes so much to the United States Constitution, it would be appropriate for us all to see what it owed its own origins to and be recalled to values of liberty, modesty and reason in a way which does not rush headlong into a catastrophe of pride.

It has been many years since I pondered and repondered over this volume. Locke is an important figure in the history of Western Philosophy. He is really the founding figure of the great empirical tradition which would go through Hume all the way up to the various analytical philosophies of the twentieth century.
He is also a major political thinker whose importance for the great founders of America cannot be overestimated.
Locke talks about the mind as tabula rasa as a blank slate which experience writes upon, and reflection compounds into ' complex ideas' The simple ideas come through experience. This total rejection of inherent ideas, and inherent structures of the mind is something which a lot of modern linguistic theory rejects.
As to the way we apprehend experience immediately I think here too Locke is in some way contradicted by modern psychological theory which would speak in some sense about our structuring that experience through our own participation in perception. In other words Locke's model of perception is I believe a far too ' passive one'. I cannot however judge, as I do not know enough about the subject whether or not Lockean categories in these areas of perception, reflection and in general description of the way we experience and know the world have any force today.
Locke's political thinking is incorporated in the Declaration of Independence with its formulation of rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As strong opponent of tyrannical authority in the political world Locke's thinking made a real impact on the world. He is one of those thinkers at the foundation of modern democratic thought.
The book is not easy reading. I can remember going back over it again and again to try and understand the difference between primary and secondary qualities- I can remember trying to understand how much of what Locke says has validity and is ' really the truth'.
Parenthetically I think of how as a young person knowing the truth finding the truth was such a supreme value for me. And how I thus felt it so important to know whether Locke was ' right' or not. Time and experience perhaps have made me worse. And I see this work as yet one more effort to interpret and understand Reality . This is as if to say I at this age anyway seem to accept the idea that I myself will not know and find the truth in regard to everything, including the philosophy of Locke.
Again. This is one of the major works of Western philosophy and it should be read and studied by one who cares to know the Western philosophical tradition.

The highest compliment I can pay this book is the fact that throughout my entire reading I found myself repeating (in my mind), "I already knew that!" This is evidence of how influential Locke's philosophy has been on our present-day understanding of human nature. Also, aesthetically, the book was enjoyable because of its "courtly" English.

The boos is a great synthesis of Locke`s book. Not just as a synthesis, it is still complete and the author wrote it in more understandable words than the pridinal, so it`s easier to read and understand Locke`s ideas, which are aplicable to nowadays

Mr locke lived a very long time ago and is dead. Thomas Jefferson used to be president of the United States said Mr Locke was a very smart man. I think this is a very long essay. I'm bettin' Mr. Jefferson didn't read the whole thing in one sittin'.. the end... I am an old electrician and not a philosopher; I am in no way qualified to review or offer worthy commentary on Mr. Locke's work.

For the most part, this book is unreadable and uninspiring. The abridged editions are not much better. It was highly influential in its time, so it's standard reading for history-of-philosophy courses. This is one of several excellent reasons why you shouldn't take history of philosophy courses.

For the voluntary reader, the fact that Locke was highly influential also means that his ideas have been developed into something clearer and more interesting by the intervening generations. Read Hume or a 20th-cent. empiricist instead.

I often ponder the meaning of life. I often consider what experiences I might accomplish over the course of my life. And I also consider those experiences I hope not to accomplish. Certainly, I wish reading Locke's essay had been on the latter list. This book is an exhibition of human wastelandism. If your hope is to become truly stupider, I suggest you read this breakthrough in stupidity and worthless Babel. And then eat the book. And then vomit the book up, and burn the book/vomit. And vow never to read another one of Locke's filth-bombs.

Not just simple ideas in this one but stupid ones too. No one should ever read this colossal waste of time unless by reading you mean beating yourself unmercifully on the face and head until death occurs.