Part of our latest task was to analyase and study 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' By John Locke (1690)
In this essay we find some of Locke's most thorough and complex theories regarding various ways of knowing but also some political ideas like the government's role in society, disputes over property control, rights, revolution, etc.
I will begin by expressing my ideas on what I find easiest to analyse when it comes to Locke, which is his ideas about the government's role in society:
I like how Locke believes that the government should not take a major role in society other than to help solve property disputes. Frankly the idea of arbitrary unbiased third party that helps reconsile land owners with one another and helps them solve their land disputes is very appealing. I think Locke had in mind a much smaller and powerless governmental body than the idea of government we have now, especially when you read his ideas on revolution and that if a government simply doesn't fulfil people's requirements then they can be overthrown.
I'm not exactly sure how he intends to replace the government he dismantles since the government is simply a group of men, selected by the people to represent them, if such elected men are not fit to deal with the tasks required who else can they choose? Perhaps it's not a matter of removing each government we dislike and learning how to choose the right people so there is no need for revolution.
Nevertheless I agree with Locke that revolution is a freedom and governments should fear their people for power lies truly in their hands and not the institution.
Coming back to Philosophy, when I read Locke's concern human understanding I face two problems: My lack of understanding late 17th century writing and philosophical contradiction (sometimes the 1st one needs more thorough reading than the latter one).
Locke believed that our senses were the key to obtaining knowledge, infallible tools given at birth that would suck in information and help us understand. I don't know if John Locke was familiar with interpretation, I really think he was but he often forgot that the essence of interpretation ignores our senses but our senses can't ignore interpretation for they are linked to a mind process of understanding almost immediately after our senses perceive that which is to be perceived.
My point is that we can see the same thing and still interpret different things thus obtaining a different knowledge. I can show somebody a beautiful rose and ask 'how beautiful is this rose sir?' and he may say 'that rose is not beautiful at all, sir' - we are both staring at the same rose but our interpretation is different, so what is the truth here? There is simply no such thing, the rose is what it is, full stop. There is neither beauty nor ugliness within; it's just what it is. That's interpretation. It gets harder than that.
Two men stare at the northern lights, one says: 'The northern lights are incredible!' and the other replies 'I've never seen those, but I tell you what's incredible... seeing god painting the sky! Now that's a wonder' *pointing at the northern lights*
These men stare at the same phenomenon but their interpretation of what it is is completely different. One would be said to have obtained the right knowledge, experiencing the northern lights for the first time, the other who claims to have seen divine intervention... would obviously be incorrect. Ultimately Locke was right, they have both obtained knowledge through their senses, but one of them got the wrong knowledge.
Senses provide us with information, but once we interpret this information we transform that which is, into something else. Locke never speaks of mere observation; therefore I can't find him as wise as some may think he is.
I agree with Locke that knowledge is obtained through experience but to a certain extent because once again, this experience is interpreted and transform into something else by our understanding of this interpretation, Locke also believes that there is a real knowledge behind what we experience, as Plato thought there is a perfect shape somewhere beyond our interpretation and the cave which is our mind and I agree with them.
What I certainly can't agree with Locke is his idea matters of faith going beyond reason and experience, individuals should be guided by their private revelation but these revelations should never be imposed by the church or the state. I would say by anyone, science however disagrees with John Locke and here is where I believe he contradicts himself because there is no knowledge only a belief of knowledge and he who believes in this knowledge knowing that no knowledge is true then simply has faith. If we believe that there is no knowledge only faith of the supposed knowledge then Locke believes that nobody can impose this ideas to anyone, however he does the opposite. Science is not infallible.
Nobody should impose any knowledge to anyone, just simply allow this person to experience and let them discover their own interpretation. Both Science and Religion claim to reveal knowledge but only they reveal a way of knowing, another way to interpret things.
Lastly I'd like to talk about Locke's ideas of liberty and different rights people should have. I agree with him that we should all have rights of liberty, property, expression and life, however the way he exposes them in his essay is too syntagmatic, he listed them with a number of priority and said that men should have them so long as they don't contradict each other. It should be more of a Paradigm where all of our rights are just a group of rights, related to each other by the purpose they have in common but cannot be prioritised one over the other.
John Locke covered many different theories and ideas. His essay concerning human understanding is very long.
I will write another post that furthers this examination of Mr Locke's theories.
...or I could summarise everything with this video.
