RELATED
QUESTIONS
Ø Critically evaluate John Locke's empiricism.
JOHN LOCKE AS AN EMPIRICIST
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: ON THE NATURE OF MIND
Locke’s main intention here is to show that sense knowledge is superior to rational knowledge. Accordingly, he maintained that reason (mind) is not an innate characteristic of man but an element formed via the process of abstraction. In addition, he made it clear that the mind functions in a passive role as a slave to the senses. The passive role which reason plays is what Locke call tabula rasa. This expression implies that the mind has no form, content or character at birth. It only comes to acquire character as the individual matures and experiences life. Thus, it is the senses that first feels the world and then comes to feed the mind with information via the process of abstraction. Therefore, the concept of the mind having innate (inborn) ideas is invalid as far as Locke’s empiricism is concerned. The mind only has the capacity to acquire knowledge by the service of the senses.
JOHN LOCKE: ON THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE, IDEAS AND SUBJECTIVITY
Locke makes it clear that there are two main sources of knowledge and ideas. These are the outer sense and the inner sense. Firstly, the outer sense refers to sensation; the ability to be physically conscious of the world around and outside us. Secondly, the inner sense refers to perception; the operation of the mind via which it gathers sense data and then interprets it as ideas.
By Subjectivity, Locke simply implies the process of abstraction, which is the way via which ideas are formed. These ideas, which are mental images of physical things impressed upon our minds, are classified into two; simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas (primary ideas) are the first information the senses come to encounter and then these are impressed directly on the mind. Complex ideas (secondary ideas) happen because of combined reflection on the primary ideas in the mind (reason). Thus, we could say that simple ideas are a product of sensation (outer sense) while secondary ideas are a product of perception (inner sense).
JOHN LOCKE: ON 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.
JOHN LOCKE: ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES
The concept of primary and secondary qualities derives from Locke’s discourse on substance. He holds that there exist primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are inherent in concrete, solid things (substratum) as part of substance. These primary qualities are what give us primary ideas. Primary qualities include solidity, extension, rest, motion, figure, weight, number and the likes. However, the secondary qualities are not inherent in things. Instead, they belong to the percipients senses (sense organs) as powers, which produce ideas. Secondary qualities are simply sounds, tastes, smells, colours and feelings. Consequently, the secondary qualities are nothing but impressions made upon the mind by the primary qualities, which then translates into knowledge or cognition via our perception. For example, weight (a primary quality) is impressed upon our feelings (a secondary quality) which then translate to our cognition as a heavy or light object.
JOHN LOCKE: ON KNOWLEDGE
Locke holds the view that there are only three ways in which we can have knowledge. These are by sensation (sense knowledge), by reason (demonstrative knowledge) and by intuition (intuitive knowledge). Firstly, sensation (sense knowledge) is the lowest form of knowledge because it is knowledge of particular things. Sensation is what we experience via concrete objects which are the cause of sensation. Nevertheless, all we have ability for is to sense objects; we cannot experience the objects themselves. It is sensation that becomes the first step on the ladder of knowledge, and it is the foundation of demonstrative knowledge.
Secondly, Locke defines knowledge as “the perception of the agreement and disagreement of two ideas”. The above is an explanation of reason as a mode of knowledge. Therefore, knowledge as a process of rational reflection entails how ideas agree and disagree. Specifically, Locke makes it clear that ideas must agree (or correspond) with things. By reasoning, Locke did not imply the rationalist’s kind, but meant demonstrative knowledge, which is an empirical kind of knowledge that supports scientific research. It is knowledge established through experimentation, observation and hypothesis.
Thirdly, Locke presents intuition as the peak of knowledge; so, intuitive knowledge is the highest kind of knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is spontaneous as it comes to one in an immediate flash. Thus, intuitive knowledge lives in a world of its own as it does not depend on anything or intermediary process to thrive. Knowledge of our own existence is an example of intuitive knowledge. Mathematical knowledge is another example of intuitive knowledge.
CRITIQUE OF JOHN LOCKE'S EMPIRICISM
Of all his ideas, Locke’s postulation of intuitive knowledge being the highest mode of knowledge has its inconsistencies. Firstly, intuitive knowledge and sense knowledge are very much related as for one to be intuitive, one needs to be sensitive to the environment around him. But, Locke presents intuitive knowledge as though it existed in its own sphere as an autonomous thing, whereas, this is not the case.
Secondly, Locke sounds like a rationalist when he talks on intuitive knowledge. This is so because rationalists like Spinoza the mystic, did actually posit intuitive knowledge as the highest form of knowledge. Thus, for Locke to classify intuitive knowledge as such, it can be argued that he has transcended empiricism into rationalism which he sought to dominate in the first place.
In addition, for Locke to even present mathematical knowledge as an example of intuitive knowledge shows that he somewhat agrees with reason as a valid route to knowledge. This follows because; reason is the faculty that deals with mathematical exercise which is itself a product of the human intellect. Therefore, on the whole, Locke seems to unconsciously or stylishly mix rationalism with his empiricism. On this basis, his empiricist theory happens to be corrupted.
Ø Critically evaluate John Locke's empiricism.
JOHN LOCKE AS AN EMPIRICIST
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: ON THE NATURE OF MIND
Locke’s main intention here is to show that sense knowledge is superior to rational knowledge. Accordingly, he maintained that reason (mind) is not an innate characteristic of man but an element formed via the process of abstraction. In addition, he made it clear that the mind functions in a passive role as a slave to the senses. The passive role which reason plays is what Locke call tabula rasa. This expression implies that the mind has no form, content or character at birth. It only comes to acquire character as the individual matures and experiences life. Thus, it is the senses that first feels the world and then comes to feed the mind with information via the process of abstraction. Therefore, the concept of the mind having innate (inborn) ideas is invalid as far as Locke’s empiricism is concerned. The mind only has the capacity to acquire knowledge by the service of the senses.
JOHN LOCKE: ON THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE, IDEAS AND SUBJECTIVITY
Locke makes it clear that there are two main sources of knowledge and ideas. These are the outer sense and the inner sense. Firstly, the outer sense refers to sensation; the ability to be physically conscious of the world around and outside us. Secondly, the inner sense refers to perception; the operation of the mind via which it gathers sense data and then interprets it as ideas.
By Subjectivity, Locke simply implies the process of abstraction, which is the way via which ideas are formed. These ideas, which are mental images of physical things impressed upon our minds, are classified into two; simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas (primary ideas) are the first information the senses come to encounter and then these are impressed directly on the mind. Complex ideas (secondary ideas) happen because of combined reflection on the primary ideas in the mind (reason). Thus, we could say that simple ideas are a product of sensation (outer sense) while secondary ideas are a product of perception (inner sense).
JOHN LOCKE: ON 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.
JOHN LOCKE: ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES
The concept of primary and secondary qualities derives from Locke’s discourse on substance. He holds that there exist primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are inherent in concrete, solid things (substratum) as part of substance. These primary qualities are what give us primary ideas. Primary qualities include solidity, extension, rest, motion, figure, weight, number and the likes. However, the secondary qualities are not inherent in things. Instead, they belong to the percipients senses (sense organs) as powers, which produce ideas. Secondary qualities are simply sounds, tastes, smells, colours and feelings. Consequently, the secondary qualities are nothing but impressions made upon the mind by the primary qualities, which then translates into knowledge or cognition via our perception. For example, weight (a primary quality) is impressed upon our feelings (a secondary quality) which then translate to our cognition as a heavy or light object.
JOHN LOCKE: ON KNOWLEDGE
Locke holds the view that there are only three ways in which we can have knowledge. These are by sensation (sense knowledge), by reason (demonstrative knowledge) and by intuition (intuitive knowledge). Firstly, sensation (sense knowledge) is the lowest form of knowledge because it is knowledge of particular things. Sensation is what we experience via concrete objects which are the cause of sensation. Nevertheless, all we have ability for is to sense objects; we cannot experience the objects themselves. It is sensation that becomes the first step on the ladder of knowledge, and it is the foundation of demonstrative knowledge.
Secondly, Locke defines knowledge as “the perception of the agreement and disagreement of two ideas”. The above is an explanation of reason as a mode of knowledge. Therefore, knowledge as a process of rational reflection entails how ideas agree and disagree. Specifically, Locke makes it clear that ideas must agree (or correspond) with things. By reasoning, Locke did not imply the rationalist’s kind, but meant demonstrative knowledge, which is an empirical kind of knowledge that supports scientific research. It is knowledge established through experimentation, observation and hypothesis.
Thirdly, Locke presents intuition as the peak of knowledge; so, intuitive knowledge is the highest kind of knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is spontaneous as it comes to one in an immediate flash. Thus, intuitive knowledge lives in a world of its own as it does not depend on anything or intermediary process to thrive. Knowledge of our own existence is an example of intuitive knowledge. Mathematical knowledge is another example of intuitive knowledge.
CRITIQUE OF JOHN LOCKE'S EMPIRICISM
Of all his ideas, Locke’s postulation of intuitive knowledge being the highest mode of knowledge has its inconsistencies. Firstly, intuitive knowledge and sense knowledge are very much related as for one to be intuitive, one needs to be sensitive to the environment around him. But, Locke presents intuitive knowledge as though it existed in its own sphere as an autonomous thing, whereas, this is not the case.
Secondly, Locke sounds like a rationalist when he talks on intuitive knowledge. This is so because rationalists like Spinoza the mystic, did actually posit intuitive knowledge as the highest form of knowledge. Thus, for Locke to classify intuitive knowledge as such, it can be argued that he has transcended empiricism into rationalism which he sought to dominate in the first place.
In addition, for Locke to even present mathematical knowledge as an example of intuitive knowledge shows that he somewhat agrees with reason as a valid route to knowledge. This follows because; reason is the faculty that deals with mathematical exercise which is itself a product of the human intellect. Therefore, on the whole, Locke seems to unconsciously or stylishly mix rationalism with his empiricism. On this basis, his empiricist theory happens to be corrupted.
No comments:
Post a Comment