RELATED
QUESTIONS
Ø How does John Locke's theory of solidity constitute a limitation to his empiricism?
Ø How is John Locke’s conception on substance a contradiction of his empiricism?
JOHN LOCKE'S EMPIRICISM: A SUMMARY
John Locke was an empiricist in roughly the same sense that Aquinas was, and he set an example for his successors. His empiricism had as its purpose "to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief and opinion. His main target for attack was the rationalist doctrine of innate ideas, the doctrine that there may be ideas with which we are born or which we do not have to derive from sense experience. The first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding is devoted to a critical attack on this doctrine. In the rest of the book, he sets out a positive account of the way in which ideas are built up, emphasizing that ideas may either be derived from sensation or from reflection upon that which was sensed; aside this, ideas have no other source. He also classified ideas as simple or complex, the latter resulting out of the former.
Unlike Francis Bacon, John Locke’s empiricism is quite theoretical in nature. Instead of making the methodological procedures of empiricism and science to be the same, he used empiricism to lay a strong philosophical foundation for science. Thus, Locke’s empiricist theory is more philosophical than scientific. However, like Bacon, Locke also disregarded speculative metaphysics. Regarding John Locke’s empiricism, there are some basic empiricist maxims to consider. These are:
i. He maintained that true knowledge of things comes from the senses and that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things.
ii. He believed that the human mind is “tabula rasa” (completely blank) at birth.
iii. He rejected the substance theory of the mind, which is, the theory of innate ideas.
iv. He also held the common view that there was nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses.
JOHN LOCKE'S THEORY OF SOLIDITY (SUBSTANCE)
As an empiricist, Locke holds that substance is physical and concrete. Furthermore, he emphasizes that substance is “solidity”. This physical, concrete solidity becomes what Locke calls the substratum of those qualities that we now then reflect on and perceive as ideas. When we initially perceive things, we do not perceive the things themselves but the qualities they possess which then impress themselves in our minds as images. These qualities like size, weight, shape, thickness, motion, rest, numbers and the likes cannot exist independently on their own. Instead, they are inherent in the substratum, which supports their existence. Hence, the substratum is more like what we call substance in metaphysics while the qualities are the accidents that live and depend on the substance for survival. In essence, we can never perceive or know the substratum (substance) as it were. We can only know or perceive these qualities (accidents) which proceed from it. The only way we seem to have an idea of the existence of the substratum is via inferential knowledge, since these qualities cannot exist on their own; as accidents, they must be existing in something, which is substance (substratum). What John Locke is trying to say here is that we can never know things as they are in themselves but only the qualities they possess which, occur as ideas in our minds.
THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LOCKE'S SOLIDITY THEORY AND HIS EMPIRICISM
On the surface, one would applaud Locke for the espousal of his theory of solidity but on a very close look, some inherent contradiction is noticed which acts as a limitation to his empiricism. In summary, what Locke is trying to explain with his theory of solidity is that “we can never know things as they are in themselves (substance) but only the qualities they possess (accidents) which, occur as ideas in our minds”. However, considering one of Locke’s foremost empiricist maxims, which says that “true knowledge of things comes from the senses and that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things”, a problem certainly comes up. If we should accept Locke’s idea that true knowledge of things comes from the senses, it then follows that the senses are the ultimate sources of true knowledge. Nevertheless, Locke’s statement about substratum (substance) that we can never know things as they are in themselves contradicts Locke initial statement. This follows because it is the senses we first use (via sensation or outer sense) to cognise the substratum before we translate its qualities as ideas (via perception) to our minds. So therefore, how can the senses, which do not have the capacity to know substratum (physical concrete substance) now then be the source of true knowledge? Again, for Locke to add that we can only know the qualities they possess which, occur as ideas in our minds, complicates issues. This is because Locke’s basic ideology that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things is against this postulation. Ideas are rational elements; thus, if reason (according to Locke) is not able to give us true knowledge of things, it follows that we cannot know the qualities (ideas), which derive existence from substratum.
Ø How does John Locke's theory of solidity constitute a limitation to his empiricism?
Ø How is John Locke’s conception on substance a contradiction of his empiricism?
JOHN LOCKE'S EMPIRICISM: A SUMMARY
John Locke was an empiricist in roughly the same sense that Aquinas was, and he set an example for his successors. His empiricism had as its purpose "to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief and opinion. His main target for attack was the rationalist doctrine of innate ideas, the doctrine that there may be ideas with which we are born or which we do not have to derive from sense experience. The first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding is devoted to a critical attack on this doctrine. In the rest of the book, he sets out a positive account of the way in which ideas are built up, emphasizing that ideas may either be derived from sensation or from reflection upon that which was sensed; aside this, ideas have no other source. He also classified ideas as simple or complex, the latter resulting out of the former.
Unlike Francis Bacon, John Locke’s empiricism is quite theoretical in nature. Instead of making the methodological procedures of empiricism and science to be the same, he used empiricism to lay a strong philosophical foundation for science. Thus, Locke’s empiricist theory is more philosophical than scientific. However, like Bacon, Locke also disregarded speculative metaphysics. Regarding John Locke’s empiricism, there are some basic empiricist maxims to consider. These are:
i. He maintained that true knowledge of things comes from the senses and that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things.
ii. He believed that the human mind is “tabula rasa” (completely blank) at birth.
iii. He rejected the substance theory of the mind, which is, the theory of innate ideas.
iv. He also held the common view that there was nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses.
JOHN LOCKE'S THEORY OF SOLIDITY (SUBSTANCE)
As an empiricist, Locke holds that substance is physical and concrete. Furthermore, he emphasizes that substance is “solidity”. This physical, concrete solidity becomes what Locke calls the substratum of those qualities that we now then reflect on and perceive as ideas. When we initially perceive things, we do not perceive the things themselves but the qualities they possess which then impress themselves in our minds as images. These qualities like size, weight, shape, thickness, motion, rest, numbers and the likes cannot exist independently on their own. Instead, they are inherent in the substratum, which supports their existence. Hence, the substratum is more like what we call substance in metaphysics while the qualities are the accidents that live and depend on the substance for survival. In essence, we can never perceive or know the substratum (substance) as it were. We can only know or perceive these qualities (accidents) which proceed from it. The only way we seem to have an idea of the existence of the substratum is via inferential knowledge, since these qualities cannot exist on their own; as accidents, they must be existing in something, which is substance (substratum). What John Locke is trying to say here is that we can never know things as they are in themselves but only the qualities they possess which, occur as ideas in our minds.
THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LOCKE'S SOLIDITY THEORY AND HIS EMPIRICISM
On the surface, one would applaud Locke for the espousal of his theory of solidity but on a very close look, some inherent contradiction is noticed which acts as a limitation to his empiricism. In summary, what Locke is trying to explain with his theory of solidity is that “we can never know things as they are in themselves (substance) but only the qualities they possess (accidents) which, occur as ideas in our minds”. However, considering one of Locke’s foremost empiricist maxims, which says that “true knowledge of things comes from the senses and that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things”, a problem certainly comes up. If we should accept Locke’s idea that true knowledge of things comes from the senses, it then follows that the senses are the ultimate sources of true knowledge. Nevertheless, Locke’s statement about substratum (substance) that we can never know things as they are in themselves contradicts Locke initial statement. This follows because it is the senses we first use (via sensation or outer sense) to cognise the substratum before we translate its qualities as ideas (via perception) to our minds. So therefore, how can the senses, which do not have the capacity to know substratum (physical concrete substance) now then be the source of true knowledge? Again, for Locke to add that we can only know the qualities they possess which, occur as ideas in our minds, complicates issues. This is because Locke’s basic ideology that reason cannot surely grant us true knowledge of things is against this postulation. Ideas are rational elements; thus, if reason (according to Locke) is not able to give us true knowledge of things, it follows that we cannot know the qualities (ideas), which derive existence from substratum.
No comments:
Post a Comment