John Locke his main ideas. On the theory of prices. Philosophical views of John Locke
John Locke the main ideas of the English teacher and philosopher are summarized in this article.
The main ideas of John Locke
Brief political and state ideas of John Locke
He believed that the state arose as a result of a social contract. In his ideal version, all people are independent and equal. They act according to the main rule - do not harm the health, life, property and freedom of another person. This is the purpose of the creation of the state.
The basis of the state is an agreement, which is concluded by a certain number of people to create bodies of judicial, legislative and executive power. The state doctrine of John Locke is based on the concept of legality he substantiated: everyone is equal before the law and can act as they wish, if this is not prohibited by law.
The form of the state directly depends on who heads it, who owns the legislative power. It started the creation of the state. But it is limited by the law of nature and the public good. The best form of government, according to the philosopher, is a limited monarchy.
Locke defended the principle of guaranteed freedom of conscience. Church and state must exist separately from each other, because these two instances have different goals and objectives. He proposed to divide state power in order to create a system of interaction between the state and society. The scientist identified 3 types of power:
- Legislative, which indicates how the power of the state should be used. It was created by the people.
- Executive, which monitors the implementation of laws. Its "representatives" are the monarch, minister and judges.
- Federal
John formulated the idea of popular sovereignty: the people have the right to control the work of the legislature and change its structure and composition. He gave the king the right to convene and dissolve parliament, the right to veto and legislative initiative.
Locke is considered the founder of liberalism, since he formulated the principles of bourgeois statehood.
John Locke discoveries in pedagogy
John Locke formulated thoughts about education on the basis of how his father raised him. He was fully convinced that the upbringing of a child develops his character, discipline and will. But the most important thing is to combine physical education along with spiritual development. It manifests itself in the development of health and hygiene, and spiritual - in the development of dignity and morality.
Locke was the first thinker to reveal personality through the continuity of consciousness. He believed that the mind was like a "blank slate", that is, contrary to Cartesian philosophy, Locke argued that people are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience gained by sense perception.
John Locke pedagogical ideas:
- Compliance with discipline, a strict daily routine and eating simple meals.
- Application of developing exercises and games.
- Children should be taught graceful manners from an early age.
- The child must do everything that does not contradict morality.
- Children should be punished only in case of systematic disobedience or defiant behavior.
John Locke major writings- "An Essay on Human Understanding", "Two Treatises on Government", "Experiments on Law and Nature", "Letters on Toleration", "Thoughts on Education".
We hope that from this article you have learned what are the main ideas of John Locke.
JOHN LOCK.
The first, in the most general form, the task of studying the origin, reliability and scope of human knowledge was set by the English philosopher, a doctor by education and a politician by the nature of his practical activity, John Locke (1632-17-4). In his main scientific work "Experiment on the human mind" (1690) Locke set himself the goal of comprehensively substantiating the proposition about the empirical origin of all human knowledge. The first question that he had to solve on the way to the implementation of his plan was to express his attitude to the widespread theory of "innate ideas". D. Locke categorically rejects the possibility of the existence of such ideas.
Since D. Locke denied the existence of innate ideas, the following question naturally arose: what is the source of these ideas? Answering this question, the English philosopher clearly formulates the initial principle of empiricism. "All our knowledge is based on experience, from it, in the end, our observation proceeds, directed either to external. media, or to the internal actions of our soul, perceived and reflective ourselves, deliver to our mind all the material We w leyai i T am same. From 128).
As can be seen from D. Locke's statement, he distinguishes two types of experience: external experience, consisting of a set of definitions, and internal experience, formed from the mind's observations of hell by its internal activity. The source of the external is the objective material world, which affects the human senses and causes sensations. On this basis, the English thinker argues, simple ideas arise in us that have a real (ie, objective) content, consistent with the things themselves.
External experience or reflection is an activity on his mind when he is processing the ideas he has acquired. Explaining his understanding of inner experience or reflection, D. Locke emphasizes the idea that each person has this source of ideas entirely inside se- for "that he" has nothing to do with external objects, and although this source is not a feeling ..., ... nevertheless, it is very similar to it and can be quite accurately called an internal feeling "(" Goal1 same. P.129). This characteristic of inner experience is intended to emphasize the great importance of the activity of the mind, reflection. But still, justifying the main position of empiricism, D. Locke repeatedly emphasized that the activity of the mind, which becomes the subject of reflection, proceeds only on the basis of sensory data that arise in a person before the ideas of reflection. And in general, the soul cannot think before the senses provide it with ideas for thinking.
However, when receiving ideas of reflection, our mind is not passive, but active. He performs certain actions of his own by which, from simple ideas as the material and foundation for the rest, others are built. Thanks to this faculty, the mind has more opportunity to diversify and reduce the objects of its thinking indefinitely longer than what sensations or reflection have delivered to it. At the same time, D. Locke clearly indicates that the mind cannot go beyond those primary ideas that are formed on the basis of sensations. External experience is the basis, the base of all subsequent knowledge.
According to the methods of formation and formation of the whole idea, according to Locke, they are divided into simple and complex. Simple ideas contain monotonous representations and perceptions and do not fall apart into any constituent elements. Locke refers to simple ideas as ideas of space, form, rest, movement, light, etc. In terms of content, simple ideas, in turn, are divided into two groups. To the first group, he refers ideas that reflect the primary or original qualities of external objects, which are completely inseparable from these objects, in whatever state they are, and which our senses constantly find in every particle of matter, enough to perceive the volume. Such, for example, are density, extension, form, movement, rest. These qualities act on the sense organs by impetus and give rise in us to simple ideas of solidity, extension, form, movement, rest, or number. Locke claims that only the ideas of the primary qualities of bodies are similar to them and their prototypes really exist in the bodies themselves, that is, the ideas of these qualities accurately reflect the objective properties of these bodies.
To the second group, he refers ideas reflecting secondary qualities, which, in his opinion, are not found in things themselves, but are forces that evoke in us various sensations with their primary qualities. (i.e. volume, shape, cohesion and movement of imperceptible particles of matter). Locke refers to secondary qualities such qualities of things as color, sound, taste, etc. Thus, the manifestation of secondary qualities is associated by the English thinker not with the objective world itself, but with its perception in human consciousness.
Complex ideas, according to Locke, are formed from simple ideas as a result of the self-activity of the mind. D. Locke identifies three main way of education complex ideas: 1. Combining several simple ideas into one complex idea; 2. Bringing together two ideas, whether simple or complex, and comparing them with each other so as to review them at once, but not combine them into one; 3. Separation of ideas from all other ideas accompanying them in their real validity.
In accordance with the nature of education, Locke distinguishes three types of complex ideas according to their content. 1. Ideas of modes or "empirical substances". Here it includes ideas that are either dependent on substances(primary bases), or their properties of the latter. 2. relationship ideas, consisting in the consideration and comparison of one idea with another and the reduction to ideas of the relations "brother, father" of cause and effect, identity and difference, etc. 3. ideas of substance, that is, a certain "substrate", "carrier", "support" of simple ideas that do not have an independent existence of a substance are divided into simple ("man") and collective (army, people). For a better understanding of the followers of the teachings of Locke, it is necessary to take a closer look at his concept of substance. As stated earlier, Locke meant substance a substrate, a carrier of a known quality or set of qualities. What is the nature of this substratum: material or spiritual? He recognizes the presence of the most reliable kind of knowledge, according to Locke, - intuition. Intuitive knowledge is a clear and distinct perception of the correspondence or inconsistency of two ideas through their direct comparison. In second place after intuition, in terms of reliability, Locke has demonstrative knowledge. In this kind of cognition, the perception of the correspondence or non-correspondence of two ideas takes place not directly, but indirectly, through a system of premises and conclusions. The third kind of knowledge sensual or sensitive cognition. This kind of knowledge is limited to the perception of individual objects of the external world. In terms of its reliability, it stands at the lowest level of knowledge and does not achieve clarity and distinctness. Through intuitive cognition we cognize our being, through demonstrative cognition - the existence of God through sensitive cognition - the existence of other things.
forest and thinking substance. But it does not establish an unambiguous relationship between the nii. They seem to be side by side, although they do not touch each other.
Of particular interest is also developed by Dhaka coyaception of abstraction or the theory of formation of the most general concepts (Kovceptov). It is the nature of this theory that makes it possible to define Locke's doctrine of complex ideas. like kovceptualism.
The problem of abstraction in the history of philosophy was considered, first of all, as the problem of the relationship between the general and the individual in cognition, closely related to the definition of the role of language. In medieval philosophy, this problem was solved from two diametrically opposed positions - vominalism and realism. The nominalists argued that the common is simply name - yomei(Name). In reality, there are only single things. Realists, on the other hand, argued that the general idea exists in reality, and the individual is only a reflection of the real existence of the idea of these things. D. Locke seeks to find a new way to solve this problem based on the theory of knowledge. According to Locke's views, general ideas are formed by abstracting from those simple ideas or features of objects that are common to all objects of a given group. So, for example, if from the complex ideas of specific people Peter, Paul, Ivan, etc. exclude only what is special in each of them, and keep only what is them general and then this general is denoted by the word "man", then the abstract idea of "man" will be obtained.
Thus, according to Locke, only ideal singular things exist. General ideas are the product of the abstracting activity of the mind. Words that express the general are only signs of general ideas. Locke's conceptualism represents a severely weakened medieval nominalism by strengthening materialistic tendencies. We have repeatedly emphasized that Locke was an empiricist, but his empiricism was not simplistic. The theory of abstraction shows that Locke attached great importance to the rational form of knowledge. This rationalistic bias is clearly manifested in his doctrine of three kinds of knowledge: intuitive, demonstrative and experimental.
John Locke (1632 - 1704) - English philosopher, was born in Wrangton, a small town in the south-west of England. Locke's father, a provincial lawyer, commanded a cavalry squadron of Cromwell's parliamentary army, which fought against the royalists.
During Cromwell's dictatorship, Locke studied at Christ Church College, Oxford University. The successes of John Locke were so good that he, as the best student, was accepted at public expense. In 1658 he received a bachelor's degree from Oxford, and in 1658 a master's degree. From 1667 he worked in the family of Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, in 1672 - with the Earl of Shaftesbury, the leader of the Whig party, opposed to Charles II. Thanks to the patronage of Shaftesberry, who rose through the ranks up to the post of Lord Chancellor of England, Locke held major positions in the highest government institutions. From 1672 to 1679 Locke was in France. When the political situation in relation to the opposition deteriorated sharply (spying on Locke, imprisonment in the Tower of Earl Shaftesbury), Locke was forced to emigrate from England. From the autumn of 1682 he lived in the Netherlands for six years.
At the beginning of 1689 he returned to his homeland, where he published a number of works conceived and written abroad. His main political and legal works are “Two treatises on state government” (1690), “Letters on religious tolerance” (1685). They reflected the views of the English educator on the social and state structure, and summarized his own experience of political activity.
The concepts of "natural law" and "social contract" that were widespread in Europe and developed by his predecessor T. Hobbes had a significant impact on Locke's socio-political views. However, Locke gave them his own interpretation, in many respects different from Hobbes's.
Locke, like Hobbes, distinguished two forms of human existence:
natural (pre-state);
political (government).
But, unlike Hobbes, who argued that arbitrariness and war of all against all reign in the state of nature, Locke saw the manifestation of freedom, equality and relative order in the state of nature. For him, the natural state of people is “a state of complete freedom in relation to their actions, in relation to the disposal of their property and person, in accordance with what they consider suitable for themselves within the boundaries of the law of nature. It is also a state of equality in which all power and all right are mutual.
IN natural state the complete freedom of human action is limited, on the one hand, by the laws of nature, and on the other hand, by reason, which requires everyone to take into account the interests of other people. The mind, according to Locke, comes from the instinct of human self-preservation. Locke teaches that since all men are equal and independent, no one should harm the life, health, liberty, or property of another.
If Hobbes contrasted natural law And natural law , then Locke identified their. Moreover, he spoke not of one, but of several natures.
fundamental rights that every person is endowed with from birth. Locke referred to the basic natural rights:
the right to life and personal integrity;
the right to work and property;
The right to freedom of thought, speech and conscience.
Locke attached particular importance to the right of property as the most important in the life of society, understanding property as the combination of natural objects with human labor. It is labor that determines “mine”, “yours” from common property; property is something inextricably linked with personality: “What a person has extracted from objects created and provided to him by nature, he has merged with his labor, with something that belongs to him inalienably and thereby makes it his property.” In exercising his rights in the state of nature, Locke believed, everyone is guided by his own reason and morality, correlating them with the laws of nature of reason and God. In order for the norms (laws) of communication that operate in the state of nature to be respected, nature endowed everyone with the opportunity to judge those who transgressed the law and subject them to punishment. However, in the state of nature there are no bodies that could impartially resolve disputes between people, carry out the proper punishment of those guilty of violating natural laws. Therefore, manifestations of willfulness and the emergence on this basis of conflicts are possible, giving rise to an atmosphere of uncertainty and destabilization.
In order to reliably ensure natural rights, equality and freedom, to protect the individual and property, people agree to form political communities, to establish a state. John Locke especially emphasizes the moment of consent: "Every peacefully formed state was based on the consent of the people." The establishment of the state is the transition to a political form of being of people, and it is possible only with the help of a social contract.
Locke's teaching about the social contract is aimed at denying both the theological and the natural-force concept of the origin of the state. According to Locke, the subjugated population tolerates the enslavers only until they can throw them off by force. Already in the state of nature, people try to come to an agreement regarding the reasonable observance of the laws of social life and the establishment of moral standards and obligations. Based on these agreements, the social contract is born.
The essence of the social contract Locke saw in the voluntary renunciation of some part of their natural rights by people in favor of the state being created and the replacement of moral norms and obligations by political laws. Each person who has entered into a social contract empowers "the legislative power to make laws for him, such as the public good will require ... And this transfers people from the state of nature to the state." The state is required to provide:
The safety of citizens
their achievement of the public good;
the realization of freedom;
protection of property.
If Hobbes proceeded from the fact that people, having once entered into a social contract, subsequently lose the right to terminate it, then Locke saw in the social contract a bilateral obligation, which, for special reasons, can be terminated by the people. The treaty is valid as long as it is based on the consent of the majority of citizens. Locke complements the social contract theory with the concept of consent. “Every peaceful formation of the state,” he argued, “was based on the consent of the people.”
Look at social contract as a bilateral agreement between the people and the state presupposes mutual observance by them of certain conditions. Locke identified four basic conditions :
· Preservation in political society of those natural human rights that were not transferred to the jurisdiction of the state in accordance with the agreement;
Subordination to the will of the majority while maintaining the inviolability of the rights of the individual and the absence of a threat to her interests;
binding for all adopted laws without exception;
preservation of the freedom of citizens.
If Hobbes proceeded from the fact that the transition from the state of nature to the state is associated with the inevitable loss of personal freedom, then for Locke the freedom of citizens in the state must not only be preserved, but also guaranteed. The loss of individual freedom cannot be the price of security. Moreover, the loss of individual freedom inevitably entails the loss of all other rights.
Locke considered it legitimate and necessary for the people to revolt against the tyrannical power that encroaches on the natural rights and freedoms of the people.
When the legislative and executive powers attempt to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to subject them to the slavery of a despotic power, they are, in Locke's opinion, putting themselves at war with the people, who are thereby freed from the duty of any further obedience. In this case, the people use the right to express their dissatisfaction either peacefully - by voting, or through an uprising, a revolution.
Problems law And legitimacy Locke saw it this way. In the general law established by people, recognized by them and admitted by their common consent as a measure of good and evil to resolve all conflicts, he saw the first constitutional state feature. Only that act has the title of law, which indicates to a rational being the behavior that is in his own interests and serves the common good, and by no means any prescription emanating from civil society as a whole or from a legislature established by people. The law must necessarily be characterized by stability and long-term action.
State power, wrote Locke, cannot assume the right to command by arbitrary despotic decrees, it must "rule according to established permanent laws proclaimed by the people and known to them, and not by impromptu decrees." Laws then contribute to the achievement of the main goal of the state. In a state, no organ can be removed from subjection to its laws. The high prestige of the law stems from the fact that it is a decisive instrument for preserving and expanding the freedom of the individual, which also guarantees the individual from the arbitrariness and despotic will of others. " Where there are no laws, there is no freedom ". Like the state itself, positive laws are created by the will and decision of the majority. In general, J. Locke had very high hopes for the law and legality.
Locke defined state as a collection of people united under the auspices of the laws they themselves established and created special bodies to resolve conflicts and punish violators of laws. He saw the peculiarity of the state in the presence of political power, which differs from the power of other types. Locke emphasized that the power of an official over his subjects must be distinguished from the power of a father over his children, from the power of a master over his servants, from the power of a husband over his wife, and from the power of a master over his slave. Political power - this power , which publishes laws and which uses force to pass laws to life, as well as to protect against external danger. By creating a state, the people determine the scope of the rights that they entrust to the state by means of a social contract. The state is given as much political power as it needs to ensure
natural rights and political freedoms of its citizens. Locke opposes Hobbesian endowment of the state with unlimited, absolute political power. He offers limit the power of the state to principles :
Consent of citizens
the inalienability of freedom;
the separation of powers;
resistance to tyranny.
The choice of form of government, according to Locke, should be determined on the basis of popular consent. In addition to the main forms (democracy, oligarchy, monarchy), they allow the possibility of the existence of intermediate forms and the changeability of one form to another at the will of the people. The best form of government for him is that which would effectively carry out its main tasks and strictly follow the basic principles of limiting political power. Locke considered the guiding principle of such a limitation to be separation of powers. According to him- supreme , legislative , executive And church authorities should have been separated from each other .
Legislative power - this is the power entrusted by the people to the parliament elected by them. According to Locke, Parliament should be bicameral (the House of Lords and the House of Commons) in order to express the interests of various estates. Parliament, issuing universal laws, is itself obliged to strictly follow them.
Executive power - this is the power, in the introduction of which should be control over the implementation of adopted laws, protection on the basis of legislation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, punishment of those who violate the law, maintaining diplomatic relations with other states, and implementing military strategy. According to Locke, the head of the executive branch should be the king, who heads the government, appoints judges and exercises "federal power" - foreign policy.
Locke, as a supporter of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance, insisted on the separation of the church from the state, and the state from the church. Church power cannot be extended to civil cases. The state has the right to interfere in the affairs of the church only when religious phenomena arise that are dangerous for the whole society or are incompatible with the laws and moral standards adopted in this state.
exemplary form of government , from the point of view of the implementation of the principle of separation of powers, he considered constitutional monarchy . Supreme power - this is the power of the people, which remains with them and is not transferred to any state body or ruler. The supreme power decides on the choice or change of the form of state government, sets the conditions and establishes the limitations of political power.
In essence, the normal "structure of government" was drawn by J. Locke as a set of official, normatively fixed checks and balances. The legislature is the supreme power in that the laws are strictly binding on the government, officials and judges. The monarch is the head of the executive branch, therefore he has the right to dissolve and convene parliament, the right to veto, the right in the interests of the common good to improve the electoral system for more equal and proportional representation. But the activity of the monarch and the government must be strictly subordinate to the law.
Locke's ideas about natural law and the principles of government served as the theoretical foundation for the creation of English bourgeois legislation. The creators of the American constitution also turned to them. Locke had a significant influence on the educational ideology and free thinking in France, Germany, and Russia in the 18th century.
Summarizing the political and legal views that arose in the 17th century in the bowels of capitalist society, it should be emphasized that the legal worldview of the bourgeoisie received a detailed embodiment in the theory of natural law and public
contracts. Their emergence was a huge step forward in the development of the doctrine of the state and law. In the process of overcoming the theological worldview, the dogmas of medieval scholasticism collapsed; rationalistically raised and resolved questions of the relationship of personality, law and the state, discussed the origin, tasks, functions of the state and law, their role in public life. The view of a person with his needs and social qualities as the starting point of the teachings on law and the state led to a clearly expressed axiological aspect of the natural law doctrines of the 17th - 18th centuries, an indisputable assumption about the value of the individual, about the subordination of law and the state to the earthly interests of people.
John Locke is the father not only of modern empiricism, but also of materialism. His philosophy of the theory of knowledge consists in the development of two main thoughts, of which the first is the denial of innate ideas in man, and the second is the assertion that experience is the source of all our knowledge.
Many, says Locke, are of the opinion that there are innate ideas that arise in the soul at the very moment of its inception. She (the soul) brings these ideas with her into the world. The innateness of ideas is proved by the fact that they are something common, unconditional for everyone without exception. If the latter really took place, then the generality of ideas would not serve as proof of their innateness. But we do not even see an unconditional generality, any ideas whatsoever, either in theory or in practice. We will not find a single rule of morality that would exist among all peoples, at all times. Children and idiots often have no idea about the simplest axioms. All this speaks against the innateness of ideas. We come to the knowledge of the simplest truths by reasoning, but they by no means precede reasoning. Our initial knowledge does not consist of general propositions, but of individual impressions of a particular nature. The child distinguishes bitter from sweet, dark from light, and so on. The mind or soul, when it comes into the world, represents a white sheet of paper, empty space, and so on. After all this, the question is inevitable: where do our ideas come from? Undoubtedly, we receive them from experience, by which, therefore, all our knowledge and all its most general laws are determined. Our experience is of twofold origin: we cognize the external world either through our sense organs (that is, sensations), or through the consciousness of the internal activity of our soul, that is, by reasoning (reflection). Sensation and reasoning give our mind all ideas.
Locke set himself the task of ascertaining the origin of ideas from these two sources. He distinguishes between ideas (representations) simple and complex. By simple ideas he calls the reflections of reality in our soul, as in a mirror. For the most part, we get simple ideas or representations through one sense, for example, the idea of color is given to us by sight, the idea of solidity by touch, but these also include ideas that are the result of the activity of several senses: such are the ideas of extension and movement, obtained through touch and sight. Among the simple ideas or representations we also find activities that owe their origin exclusively to the understanding - such is the idea of the will. Finally, ideas can also be created by the joint activity of the senses and reflection - such are the concepts of force, unity, sequence.
All these simple ideas taken together form the ABC of our knowledge. Various combinations of sounds and words create a language. In the same way, our mind, connecting ideas together in various ways, creates complex ideas.
Locke divides complex ideas into three classes: ideas of change (modes), ideas of entities (substances) and ideas of relations. By the first, Locke means a change in space (distance, dimension, immeasurability, the surface of a figure, etc.), time (duration, eternity), the process of thinking (impression, perception, memory, ability to distract, etc.).
Locke focuses on the concept of essence. He explains the origin of this concept as follows: our senses and our mind convince us of the existence of certain combinations of the simplest ideas that are most often encountered. We cannot allow these simple ideas to come together by themselves. We attribute this combination to some basis and call it essence. Essence is something unknown in itself, and we know only its individual properties.
From considering the concept of essence, Locke proceeds to the idea of relation. A relation arises when the mind compares two things or compares them. Such a comparison is possible for all things, so it is difficult to enumerate all possible relationships between objects. As a result, Locke dwells on the most important of them - on the concept of identity and difference and on the relationship of cause and effect. The idea of a cause arises when we see that one phenomenon invariably precedes another. In general, the combination of ideas gives us knowledge. It relates to simple and complex ideas in the same way that a sentence relates to words, syllables, and letters. From all this it follows that our knowledge does not go beyond the limits of experience, since we are dealing only with ideas, which, according to Locke, arise in us exclusively with the help of internal and external experience. Here is the main idea of Locke.
He expressed these views with great distinctness and clarity in all his writings, devoting them mainly to his "Experience in the study of the human mind."
An Experience in the Study of the Human Mind consists of four books:
1) "On Innate Ideas";
2) "On representations";
3) "About words";
4) "On knowledge and opinion".
The second book deals with representations by themselves, regardless of their truth. In the fourth book, Locke gives a critical assessment of knowledge, that is, he speaks of ideas that give true knowledge of reality, and considers opinion and faith as intermediate steps to true knowledge. It can be said that the content of the second and fourth books exhausts the most essential in this work. The third book considers language as a means for communicating and asserting knowledge.
As for the first book, it serves as a preparation for the reader to understand the views of Locke. Locke himself says in his conclusion that he intends his first book to clear the way for his own research, so its content is, in a way, negative. Locke goes to great lengths to destroy the belief in the existence of innate ideas. In Locke's time, innate ideas played a large part in philosophy. Descartes considered the concept of God to be innate. His followers significantly expanded this concept and based the doctrine of morality and law solely on the basic provisions that they recognized as innate. Such a belief in innate ideas threatened the further development of science, so Locke considered it his first duty to fight against innate ideas. For this struggle, it was necessary to put the reader on a new point of view, which is clarified in the second book of the "Experience".
The first book does not contain any rigorous proofs. Despite this, the reader is convinced from the very first pages that the truth is on Locke's side, and there are no innate ideas in the sense in which they were understood at that time. Locke began his study of philosophy by studying Descartes. The direction of Descartes was at that time dominant in France and partly in England. Spinoza was also of the opinion that the concept of God is innate. In ancient times, Cicero recognized this and used it to prove that God really exists. Locke, although he denied the innateness of the concept of God, was not inferior to his predecessors in piety and, of course, did not doubt the existence of a higher principle, but argued that we get an idea of God through experience, considering his creations. Empiricism did not prevent Locke from remaining a religious man. This religiosity is clearly manifested in the philosophy of Locke. He undoubtedly belonged to the number of those rare people in whom philosophy happily coexists with religion and goes with it, as it were, hand in hand.
Particular attention deserves the third book of the "Experience", devoted to the study of the properties of the language. There are many observations here, directly snatched from life, which, with their veracity, can make any person think. Of course, the science of language has made a huge step forward since the time of Locke. At that time, the opinion still reigned that the formation of a language was not subject to any specific laws. A long time later, they began to look for a natural relationship between the consonance of a word and the object that it designates. Views and explanations of phenomena sooner or later become obsolete, but correctly grasped facts, as the fruit of observations, never lose their significance. Leibniz says: language is the best mirror of our mind and soul, and therefore the study of the origin of words is able to lead us to an understanding of the activity of our mind and the processes of our thinking. Locke was obviously of the same opinion as Leibniz in this respect and devoted much of his time to studying the connection between language and thought.
The imperfection of the language, according to Locke, depends on four main reasons.
It manifests itself:
1) when the ideas expressed in words are too complex and consist of many simple ideas put together;
2) when the ideas are not in any natural connection with each other;
3) when they refer to an object inaccessible to us;
4) when the meaning of the word does not correspond to the essence of the subject.
Abuse of language also depends on various causes:
1) from the use of words with which no clear idea is associated;
2) from assimilation of a word before its meaning is understood; from the use of the same word in different meanings;
3) from the application of words to ideas other than those which they usually designate;
4) from applying them to objects that do not exist or are inaccessible.
These remarks of Locke, while having no scientific value, are very important in practice, where the use of language is usually not given due importance and is often abused.
Let us now turn to the exposition of other parts of Locke's philosophy, which are also very important for everyone and everyone. The theory of morality created by this philosopher had, as we shall see, a great influence.
Locke denied the existence of innate laws of morality. Under the latter, he understood the basic provisions of law and morality, with which mutual relations between individuals and nations must be consistent - in a word, all the rules of the community. But what is to be understood by the name of innate ideas of morality? What the Stoics recognized as true reason, Spinoza called the spiritual love of God, and Grotius called the nature of things. All this denoted something unknown, guiding our actions. Later, this unknown was called "innate ideas of morality." By challenging the existence of such ideas, Locke unwittingly undermined the foundation of every moral doctrine that ever existed. He argued that there are no general laws of morality, and sought to prove that every single rule of morality changes over time. Moreover, Locke cited as proof of the validity of his opinion that even at the present time in various countries we meet directly opposite rules of morality, which could not be the case if there were one innate idea of morality to which all the others could be reduced. . Locke also does not recognize the immutability of the so-called inner voice or the voice of conscience, saying that the conscience itself is not the same for different people and peoples, because it is also the result of education and living conditions. We are accustomed from childhood to consider good what our parents and other people whom we believe call good. We often have neither the desire nor the time to talk about what was taken for granted in childhood, and we readily admit that we were born into the world with such concepts, not knowing how and where they came from. This, according to Locke, is the true history of innate ideas. In addition, this is explained by the fact that no doctrine of morality and law is possible without the assumption of the existence of a general law. But the law can only come from a legislator, whose infallibility we cannot doubt, and who alone has the power to punish and pardon. Only the omniscient God can be such a legislator, and therefore law and morality find their foundation not in innate ideas, but in Divine revelation. It is further seen that Locke, as easily as possible, derives the general foundation of morality, but encounters great difficulties in reconciling with this Divine revelation all the various rules of community life and morality, the diversity of which in the eyes of the observer is infinite. He hardly finds it possible to establish the three most general principles of morality:
1) faith in God and in his omnipotence; recognition of the power of the sovereign and the people;
2) the fear of punishment and the desire for reward guides our actions;
3) recognition of Christian morality and no other.
It must be confessed that all this is little understood, but we cannot strictly blame Locke for the fact that his theory of morality is not as clear as the theory of knowledge. And to this day, no one has yet succeeded in discovering the basic law of our moral nature, although such people as, for example, Comte, have undertaken this task. In England, immediately after Locke, Shaftesbury and Hume were engaged in the theory of morality, who took the feeling of love for one's neighbor as the basic law. Wolf, in Germany, the same law puts on a different form and bases the theory of morality on the constant striving of man for spiritual perfection. Leibniz, in contrast to Locke, recognized the existence of innate ideas of morality, to which he attributed an instinctive character. He said: we are not aware of the rules of morality, but we feel it instinctively. All this, of course, also does not at all clarify the origin of the moral principle.
Questions about morality are closely connected with the question of free will, so it is appropriate here to quote Locke's opinion on this as well. Locke recognizes that our will is governed solely by the pursuit of happiness. Such a view was involuntarily established under the influence of observation of reality. But the philosopher, obviously, did not like this engine of all our actions, and he tried to give the word "happiness" the broadest meaning, but he did not succeed in stretching this concept to such an extent as to explain to them, for example, the actions of voluntary martyrs ...
Locke argues that thinking is able to suppress all passion and give a rational direction to the will. It is in this power of reason, in his opinion, that the freedom of man consists. If we accept such a definition of free will, then we will have to admit that not all people have the same degree of free will, while others are completely deprived of it, because for some reason there is a German proverb: "I see and justify the best, but I follow the worst." Locke recognizes as moral only those actions that come from the mind, he is convinced that if a person weighs his actions well and foresees their consequences, then he always acts justly.
Thus, Locke agrees with Socrates in this regard, recognizing that an enlightened mind invariably leads to good morality. It is remarkable that this opinion of both Locke and Socrates was the result of a direct study of reality. But the similarity of Locke with Socrates is not limited to this - both of them expressed their thoughts without further ado. In order to give an idea of Locke's presentation, his definitions of pleasure, love, anger, and so on, which are taken from the "Experience", should be given.
Pleasure and pain are mere representations. Between the representations received through the senses, the sensations of pleasure and pain are the most important, every impression is accompanied by a feeling of pleasure or a feeling of pain or does not cause any feeling. The same applies to the thinking and mood of our soul. The feeling of pain and pleasure, like any simple representation, can neither be described nor defined. These feelings can be known, like all impressions, only through one's own experience.
From these elementary feelings, Locke moves on to more complex ones. "What are called good and evil? All things are good or bad, depending on whether they cause pleasure or cause pain. We call good everything that causes a feeling of pleasure in us or raises it and eliminates pain or reduces it. On the contrary, we we call evil everything that excites pain, increases it, or deprives us of good. By the name of pleasure and pain, I mean as many bodily as mental states. Usually they are distinguished from each other, while both are in essence only different states of the soul. caused by changes taking place in the body or in the soul itself.
Pleasure and pain and their causes - good and evil - are the centers around which our passions revolve. The idea of them arises through self-observation and the study of their various influences on the change in the states and moods of the soul.
"Love. If one fixes his attention on the idea of pleasure associated with an object present or absent, he will get the concept of love. If someone says in autumn, when he is eating grapes, or in spring, when he is not there, that he loves grapes, this only means that the taste of grapes gives him pleasure. If, however, disordered health or a change in taste destroys this pleasure, then it will not be possible for him to say that he loves grapes.
"Hatred. On the contrary, the thought of pain caused by an absent or present object is what we call hatred. The ideas of love and hate are nothing more than states of the soul in relation to pleasure and pain in general, without distinction of causes from which they arise.
Wish. “Desire is a more or less living feeling, arising from the absence of that which is connected with the idea of pleasure; it rises and falls with the increase and decrease of the last feeling.
Joy. "Joy is a satisfied state of mind under the influence of the consciousness that the possession of good has been achieved or will be achieved in a short time."
Locke defines sadness as the opposite feeling. The definitions of hope, fear, doubt, anger, envy and other passions characteristic of all people are of the same character.
There is general agreement that the character of a writer should be studied in his writings. This opinion is absolutely true in relation to Locke. We do not notice high inspiration in it, but we find touching attention to the needs of ordinary people.
He keeps himself at ease with his reader, although he is aware that because of this he loses, perhaps in the opinion of many. "I know," he says, "that my frankness hurts my fame," and continues to be frank.
In support of what has been said, I will cite Locke's idea of the limitations of the human mind.
"Our ability to know is commensurate with our needs. No matter how limited the mind of a person, we must thank the Creator for it, because he leaves far behind the mental abilities of all other inhabitants of our Earth. Our mind gives us the opportunity to form the necessary concept of virtue and arrange earthly life in such a way that it leads to a better life. We are not able to comprehend the innermost secrets of nature, but what we can understand is quite enough to form an idea of the goodness of the Creator and of our own duties. We will not complain to the limits of our knowledge, if we do what is really useful to us. In the absence of sunlight, we will work by candlelight; our candle burns brightly enough for the work that we need to do. If we do not have wings, then we In case we can walk, we don't need to know everything, but only what is directly related to life. he must not cross the circle separating the light from the dark, accessible to our mind from the inaccessible. It is also unreasonable to doubt everything, if we know much for sure. Doubt undermines our strength, deprives us of vigor, makes us give up."
The reconciliation of philosophy with religion was the main task in Locke's life, and it is not difficult to imagine that this task was not an easy one. Locke's mind, humbled by religion, nevertheless often leaves the vicious circle that he himself has outlined, strives for bold conclusions, which then had to be justified and somehow connected with religion.
Recognizing experience as the only source of our knowledge, Locke stopped there and could not deduce those consequences from this situation, which were later deduced by Condillac and served to destroy many foundations of morality and religion.
None of the followers of Locke in England went to such extremes, inconsistent with the piety and conservatism of the English.
In conclusion, we will touch on the classification of sciences, which was followed by Locke. He, like the ancient Greeks, divides the sciences into physics, logic and ethics. What Locke calls logic may rather be called the philosophy of knowledge. The science opposite to it is the philosophy of being, it breaks up into the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of the soul, the latter includes the theory of morality, law and aesthetics, or the doctrine of the arts. The old Aristotelian logic belongs to the philosophy of knowledge; it also includes the science of language. We do not find theology between the sciences, since, according to Locke, it is not a science, because it is based on revelation. Locke also includes the philosophy of history as a philosophy.
My comment:
I already wrote about this a little earlier, commenting on the film "Lock", but I repeat: I became interested in the philosophy of John Locke at the moment when I saw a parallel with the main character of this film, Ivan Locke. Some viewers noted the similarity of names and decided that this was no accident. I was interested in this relationship and I wanted to learn more about the views of the real Locke, especially since throughout the film the on-screen hero Locke does nothing but solve the problem of choice. And not between major and minor things, but between one major thing, another major and a third major. Yes, and it happens. And when some say that you can always build a priority rating scale that you can use to make the right choice, then this very film is a visual aid showing that sometimes everything is equally important, and then the only right choice does not exist. And with any choice, a very high price is paid.
All this is very curious, but I didn’t really understand what the real Locke and his philosophy have to do with it, if he really has anything to do with our hero.
While telling my family about this film the other day, I asked them the question: "Who knows something about Locke and who can formulate his philosophy in three words that applies to this film?" And then my son, from whom I least of all expected any reaction, immediately gave me an answer (in English from three words, in Russian it will be from two): "Freedom of choice (freedom of choice)". (By the way, thanks to the philosophy class that my son is currently taking in college for this knowledge, even though he is studying to be a programmer!)
After that, I felt ashamed, but also doubly interested. And I started looking for information. But laying out, as well as reading, the entire article about Locke is not an easy task. It is very difficult to understand his philosophy without preparation. Therefore, out of a dozen articles I read on him, I selected several relatively easy-to-understand quotes that can help you get to know him and his views better. And also to determine whether there is a relationship between two Lok (k) s or is it nothing more than a coincidence of names.
**************************************** **************************************** ***************************
English philosopher, public and statesman, representative of empiricism and liberalism. Criticized religious intolerance and the concept of substance, rejected the theory of innate ideas, as well as the divine right of kings. Formed his own theory of ideas, government and theory of knowledge.
LOCK, JOHN(Locke, John) (1632-1704), An outstanding English philosopher, teacher, scientist, physician and politician was born into the family of a wealthy lawyer. John Locke graduated from Oxford University, where he later became professor of Greek and rhetoric. In addition to stationary education, he diligently engaged in self-education, thanks to which he became the most educated person of his time. He was sometimes called the "intellectual leader of the 18th century." and the first philosopher of the Enlightenment.
***
Locke had an enormous influence on later generations of European thinkers. ... The ideologists of the Northern States of America relied on his work, including George Washington and the author of the "Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson. Thus, in Locke we have a philosopher whose work became a turning point in the development of economic, political, and ethical ideas in Europe and America. His theory of knowledge and social philosophy had a profound impact in particular on the development american constitution.
Locke's ideas were appreciated at their true worth at the end of his life. In recent years, Locke published almost all of his works, which in one way or another subsequently influenced Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume and other smartest representatives of mankind.
***
John Locke enriched the world culture with a number of the most important scientific discoveries of socio-political doctrines, pedagogical developments.
So he justified the need for separation of power between the legislative and executive
.
During the years of cruel religious wars, he argued for the need for freedom of conscience and religious tolerance ("Letters on religious tolerance"), laid the foundations of pedagogy ("Thoughts on education"). A significant philosophical achievement of the philosopher was his doctrine of knowledge, to which he devoted his main work: "Essays on the Human Mind".
***
In my work Two treatises on state government (Two Treatises of Government, 1689, the year of publication is affixed in the book 1690) Locke outlined the theory of revolutionary liberalism. In this book, he put forward the concept of a social contract, according to which the only true basis of the power of the sovereign is the consent of the people.
If the ruler does not justify trust, people have the right and even the obligation to stop obeying him. In other words, people have the right to rebel. But how to decide when exactly the ruler ceases to serve the people? According to Locke, such a moment occurs when a ruler passes from a government based on fixed principle to a "changeable, indefinite and arbitrary" government.
***
IN letter of tolerance Locke opposed the traditional view, according to which the secular authorities have the right to propagate the true faith and true morality. He wrote that by force one can force people only to pretend, but not to believe in any way. And the strengthening of morality (in that which does not affect the security of the country and the preservation of peace) is the duty not of the state, but of the church. Locke recognized religion as an integral part of the state machine and believed that it performs important social functions that other social institutions, in particular morality and law, are unable to perform.
Locke himself was a Christian and an Anglican. But his personal creed was surprisingly short and consisted of a single proposition: Christ is the Messiah. In ethics, he was a hedonist and believed that the natural goal of man in life is happiness, and also that the New Testament showed people the way to happiness in this life and eternal life. Locke saw his task as a warning to people who seek happiness in short-term pleasures, for which they later have to pay with suffering.
***
Faith, in his understanding, is a manifestation of the creative power of the Lord. ... and no epistemological human needs can explain its appearance. It should be noted that Locke put forward his own version of the cosmological proof of the existence of God, however, repeating in many respects the reasoning scheme of Newton, who believed that apart from God it is impossible to find any source of activity of matter and consciousness. Locke had a sharply negative attitude towards atheists and even suggested depriving them of their civil rights, because from his point of view, atheists, being born skeptics, lose their ability to obey, do not put the state in anything and, ultimately, degrade morally, becoming dangerous to others, law-abiding and God-fearing individuals.
In fairness, it must be said that, being a deist in his religious convictions, Locke did not believe that faith has the Right of priority over scientific thought. Moreover, he insisted that everything incomprehensible to the mind should be rejected. ...( Deism is a religious and philosophical trend that recognizes the existence of God and the creation of the world by Him, but denies most supernatural and mystical phenomena, Divine revelation and religious dogmatism -my addition)
It can be said without exaggeration that Locke was the first modern thinker. His way of reasoning differed sharply from the thinking of medieval philosophers. The consciousness of medieval man was filled with thoughts about the unearthly world. Locke's mind was distinguished by practicality, empiricism, this is the mind of an enterprising person, even a layman: "What is the use," he asked, "of poetry?" He lacked the patience to understand the intricacies of the Christian religion. He did not believe in miracles and was disgusted with mysticism. He did not believe the people to whom the saints appeared, as well as those who constantly thought about heaven and hell. Locke believed that a person should fulfill his duties in the world where he lives. “Our share,” he wrote, “is here, in this small place on Earth, and neither we nor our concerns are destined to leave its limits.”
***
Locke's main philosophical merit in the history of philosophical thought lies in the development and substantiation of his sensationalist theory of knowledge. First of all, Locke came out with a refutation of the Platonic-Cartesian doctrine of innate ideas. He argued that there is nothing in the mind that would not be in the sensations. The mind of a newborn, said the philosopher and educator, is the “Tabula rasa” (blank slate) on which experience records its feelings. All knowledge, according to Locke, is acquired from experience. Hence Locke, following his predecessors Francis Bacon, is called an empiricist.
***
Locke rethought the concept of the "ideal of man". The ultimate goal of upbringing, “culturing” an individual, from his point of view, should not be a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality, but a person with impeccable manners, practical in character, able to dominate his passions and emotions. In other words, the human ideal is an English gentleman with all his personal characteristics.
Locke, in his two treatises on education, tells in the most detailed way what a child should eat and drink, what clothes it is preferable to dress him in, how to develop his talents and abilities and prevent the manifestation of evil inclinations, how to protect him from the corrupting influence of servants, in what games should he play and what books should he read, etc. It is worth noting that Locke's pedagogical views are clearly ahead of his time. For example, he strongly objects to the continued use of corporal punishment , believing that "this method of maintaining discipline, which is widely used by educators and accessible to their understanding, is the least suitable of all conceivable" . The use of spanking as a means of persuasion, in his opinion, “generates in the child an aversion to the fact that the educator should make him fall in love”, gradually turns him into a secretive, malicious, insincere creature, whose soul is ultimately inaccessible to a kind word and positive example.
Locke also objects to the practice of petty regulation of the child's behavior, which was widespread in those days. He believes that a young being is simply not able to remember the numerous rules that etiquette prescribes, and therefore to get them to remember them with the help of corporal punishment is simply unreasonable and reprehensible from an ethical point of view. Locke is convinced that a child should be natural in his manifestations, that he does not need to copy adults in his behavior, for whom the observance of etiquette is a necessity, and knowledge of the norms of behavior in a given situation is a kind of indicator that distinguishes an educated person from an ill-mannered one. “While the children are small,” writes Locke, “the lack of secular courtesy in their treatment, if only they have an inner delicacy, ... should worry the parents least of all.” The main thing that the educator should strive for, Locke argues, is to form in the child an idea of \u200b\u200bhonor and shame. “If you succeeded,” he writes, “to teach children to value a good reputation and fear shame and disgrace, then you have invested in them the right beginning, which will always show its effect and incline them to good ... In this I see a great secret upbringing".
Speaking of methods, Locke emphasizes that the efforts of the educator then bring success if there is trust and respect for each other between him and the educated person.. He writes: "Whoever wishes his son to treat him and his precepts with respect, he himself must treat his son with great respect." Such a formulation of the question of the relationship between the educator and the educated was extremely radical for that time, and many reproached Locke for destroying traditions and undermining the authority of teachers with his reasoning.
***
Locke stood at the origins of the labor theory of value, which he used to apologetics for bourgeois society and to prove inviolability of the right to private property
. He was the first to proclaim that "property resulting from labor can outweigh the common ownership of land, because it is labor that creates differences in the value of all things."
***
Locke notes the very significant role of pain and pleasure among the ideas received from sensation and reflection. Good and evil are also derived from pleasure and pain: “We call good that which is capable of producing or increasing our pleasure, or reducing our suffering, or securing or preserving for us the possession of some other good, or the absence of some evil. Evil, on the contrary, we call that which is capable of causing us or increasing some pain, or diminishing some pleasure, or giving us some kind of displeasure, or depriving us of some good. All human passions revolve on one rod - this is "at pleasure and suffering and that which causes them is good and evil. However, pleasure and pain do not directly affect human behavior. The mediating link is anxiety.
It is not good or evil itself that determines the will, “but some anxiety(and for the most part the most oppressive) that a person is experiencing at the moment "due to the lack (lack) of good, or in order to get rid of suffering. "Every man every yearns for happiness," i.e. the highest pleasure, and "the elimination of anxiety is the first step to happiness." Anxiety about the expected evil has a more direct effect on a person, determining his behavior, which cannot be said about the expectation of the good.
***
So, a person acts freely when he is guided by the decision of the mind: “ Liberty man and the freedom to act according to his own will based on what he has mind, who is able to teach him the law by which he must govern himself, and make him understand to what extent he retains the freedom of his own will". If we put aside the question of whether the mind can err (as having no answer in Locke's theory), then, nevertheless, another equally important question remains - Is a person always able (attuned) to be guided by reason?(Good question!) Locke answers this question in the negative.
Human behavior is determined not only by a reasonably understood good or even by the highest positive good (otherwise “an infinitely greater possible good regularly and constantly determined the will in all ... actions and there would be no need for other regulators of human behavior). An unambiguously rationalistic interpretation of the essence of man is unable to explain the diversity of human behavior. The resolution of the contradiction - the rational nature of man and his not always rational behavior - is carried out by Locke along the path outlined by his senior compatriot Hobbes. Locke is forced to admit that "anxiety of desire" can determine the will, regardless of considerations of reason.“Truth, good and evil, whether present or absent, act on the mind. But that which from time to time directly determines will to perform each arbitrary action, there is desire anxiety, directed to some missing good - either negative, what is painlessness for the sufferer, or positive, what is the pleasure of pleasure.
At every “…moment we are able to make only one decision of the will to act, therefore anxiety what we are experiencing at the moment naturally determines the will in order to achieve that happiness to which we aspire ... ". Despite proclaiming the active ability of the mind to determine its content and its choice, Locke is forced to retreat. He points out: “The most important and strong anxiety we experience at the moment is that which usually determines the will to a successive series of arbitrary actions.”
Man, being a rational being, is able to follow the dictates of reason in order to achieve good or even the highest good, but he does this, at least, inconsistently. But what is the good (happiness), and what is the highest good? If everyone decides this question for himself, guided by considerations of benefit (pleasure or pain), then any basis for moral laws common to all disappears. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that there are some objective laws that exist outside and apart from man, which should determine his behavior.
Moral relations consist "in the agreement or disagreement of the conscious actions of people with the rules to which these actions relate and by which they are judged." Locke calls them " moral relationship, because they give a name to our moral actions…”. Regardless of what we define as the norm (divine law, the customs of the country, or the will of the legislator), Locke points out, “the concept moral good or evil, which is the conformity or inconsistency of some action with a rule or norm, and therefore is often called moral justice».
In this case, moral good and evil are “only the agreement or disagreement of our conscious actions with a certain law, according to which, according to the will and power of the legislator, good or evil is done to us, and this good and evil, pleasure or pain, which, at the behest of the legislator, expect us for keeping or breaking the law, we call reward And punishment» .
***
Freedom is considered by Locke as the absence of subordination, the unboundness of man. However, any freedom implies obedience to the law. “The natural freedom of man consists in this, that he is free from any superior power on earth, and is not subject to the will or legislative power of another person, but is guided only by the law of nature.” Similarly, freedom in society and the state (“under the conditions of the existence of a system of government”) is defined as subordination only to the legislative power established “by consent in the state” and its laws. In other words, " it is the freedom to follow my own desire in all cases where the law does not forbid it, and not to be dependent on the fickle ... will of another person.
Here it is, the connection with Ivan Lok! And this film is not so much about the problem of choice, it turns out. Itfreedom
make your own choice. After all, the hero, in fact, made his choice in the very first minute of the film, and then only engaged in protecting him from the pressure of other people. Thanks to Locke, now, I think, I understood the film and its hero much deeper.
Thanks to the on-screen Lock - for the life lesson and for the pleasure of getting to know his namesake!
