Until now, as far as Locke goes, I have only summarised his Essay of Human Understanding and Russell's History of Western Philosophy, so this post is mainly to explain my thoughts about Locke's philosophy.
I will begin by commenting on his theory that all knowledge comes from either sensation or reflection. I think that this is actually quite a logical statement to make as it largely believed to be true that we are born knowing nothing and gain knowledge as we begin to be able to understand and interact with the world around us. Locke discussed that if a child were to grow up knowing nothing other than black and white then when the child is shown colour they will have no knowledge of them and will find colours difficult to comprehend. This is true of any situation, if we are raised with knowledge of certain things and not others then it is impossible for us to have any outside knowledge if we do not actively seek it ourselves.
An example of this is Oxana Malaya, a Russian girl who was neglected by her parents and as a result spent six years living only with feral dogs. The video below shows Oxana's story:
This case proves Locke's theory that a child is a blank slate and can therefore be moulded into almost anything.
Similarly to Locke, Berkeley claimed that our knowledge is gained through sensation and reflection, however he went further to say that the knowledge we have constantly changes as we experience new things. For example, if we experience new smells, Berkeley wold claim that old smells that we know are replaced by the new ones, and when we smell the old ones again the new ones are "pushed out" of our minds. I do not agree with this.
To give an example, at the moment I cannot smell any cinnamon in my room, however when I think about what cinnamon smells like I am able to recall it; the smell has not been forgotten simply because I can not smell it at present.
The same is true of Oxana. When found, doctors spent years trying to rehabilitate her, with only minimal success. She was able to learn a humanised way of life, but she did not forget her old mannerisms. For example, they taught her how to eat with a knife and fork. If Berkeley's theory was true then surely Oxana would forget how she used to eat from the ground not even using her hands. But this is not the case. Oxana was able to learn a new way of eating, but she did not forget the old way and could revert at any time.
Locke claimed that there are two parts to a human, the mind and the soul, and used the idea of a soul as continuity for his theory. Unlike Berkeley, Locke explained that the reason we are able to recall old experiences even in the face or new or conflicting knowledge, is because the old knowledge is remembered by the soul. However, I found that Locke was not particularly clear on his ideas of the soul, and somewhat uses it as a way of tidying up a somewhat messy theory!
He suggested that the soul is able to comprehend both itself and the mind, where the mid can only comprehend itself, not the soul. This belief is contradictory in itself. The very fact that Locke was able to comment on the soul surely suggests that his mind is conscious of it. If it were not possible for the mind to comprehend the soul at all, then how is it that Locke was able to be so detailed in his description of the way in which it functions?
There is also, of course, the lack of proof that comes when suggesting the idea of a soul. To date no one has been able to prove the existence of the soul and I do not believe that anyone will ever be able to find sufficient proof. People often fall back on the idea of a soul as a reason to behave morally, as your soul will be judged in the afterlife. People commonly refer to it, saying things such as "this is good for your soul" or "it is as though he has no soul" without ever really questioning their belief in it. I find it odd that so many people are willing to believe in a soul, and yet refuse to believe in God or an afterlife due to lack of evidence. When it comes down to it, there is no more reason for me to believe that I have a soul than there is for me to believe that there is such a thing as Santa Claus - and yet I believe in an immortal soul none the less. So do I really have a leg to stand on when it comes to questioning Locke's theory of the soul? The only difference is that Locke made his theory public. I am quite sure that if I were to publicly share my opinions then I to would be open to such criticism!
It is my view that many people chose to believe in a soul as a form of comfort. Surely it is better to imagine that there is part of you that is eternal, so that the very essence of you being will not perish when your body dies? But is it a comfort to take Locke's theory, that your soul is linked to, but in essence is separate to your mind? Most people, myself included, are intimidated by what they do not understand, and what they know they will never be able to understand. For example, I do not understand the laws of physics in any great detail - but there are ways that I would be able to understand them. The soul however is a different matter, and to think that there is part of me that can, in Locke's opinion, think for itself without the mind being aware, is somewhat off putting as there is in theory no way that I will ever be able to understand my soul. For this reason alone I have difficulty in accepting Locke's ideas of the soul.
I found Locke's ideas about reflection quite interesting and largely agree with his views. I believe that it is true that a lot of our knowledge comes from looking back at past experiences. For example, do not eat brussel sprouts, as past experience has taught me that I do not like the taste, I do not need to try brussel spouts repeatedly to remind myself that I don't like them. I think it is true of most people that we learn from our past experiences. At one point or another I imagine most people have said "I'll remember that for next time" or something along those lines. This is a slightly odd phrase as it suggests that we will deliberately remember the incident should the same occurrence ever happen again. Locke would suggest that we remember everything on a subconscious level and that we retain the information should we ever need it again, not that we actively remember things.
Is this always the case though? Is it possible for us to always be able to recall information when it is needed? I would argue that it isn't. For example, when taking my A-levels I needed to revise information that had already been given to me. I actively tried to recall previous information - I could not rely on the belief that I would be able to pass simply by reflecting on the the information that was given to me by my teachers.
I do not agree that we are able to simply retain information that we are given which we can then reflect on and remember. Is Locke suggesting that the more advanced the soul is the more information it can retain? The video below tells us some of the numbers of pi:
I have watched this video five times over the course of today, and still cannot remember more than 6 digits! So even though I have been given the information a number of times, I am not able to reflect on this and remember it, nor would the majority of the population.
It is estimated that pi has over one trillion digits, with no end and no repeat patterns Of course it would be ridiculous to imagine than anyone could learn them all, but there are people who are able to remember up to much more than average. The current world record holder Lu Chao can recall 67,890 digits without error - is this simply because he is gifted? Or is it because his soul is more advanced than normal and so can retain more information? Perhaps Locke could have developed his ideas to explain why it is that some people are more advanced at reflection than others.
Overall I think that Locke's theory works quite well because before you think too much about it, it appears to make logical sense!
No comments:
Post a Comment