Locke - my opinons

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!

John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Chapter One Notes

After reading through chapter one I have decided that possibly one of the most useful ways to write this post will be to go through Locke's point and translating them into how I have understood them as the wording was quite confusing!

Idea is the object of thinking:

Locke starts by questioning the origins of our ideas. He states that he believes that some ideas are "stamped upon" our minds - in other words, that they are innate to us. He explains that he has already examined this theory, and will go on to try and answer his question of where all of our thoughts come from. He suggests that the best, and possibly only, way to do this is by considering the "observations and experience" of other people.

All ideas come from sensation or reflection:

Locke then works from the idea of a mind being a blank page to question the reader as to how a mind can go from being completely "void of all characters" to being full of thoughts and ideas.These questions make the reader think about possibly answers, which is when Locke then answers the question for us by explaining his belief that the mind only gains knowledge and ideas through experience. By questioning the reader first it makes us want to be given a definitive answer, meaning that when Locke proposes his idea we are likely to accept it as it gives closure on the previous questions. He explains that our experience allows us to forms opinions and ideas not only about "external, sensible objects" but also allows us to understand the "internal operations of our minds".

The objects of sensation one source of ideas:

Locke explains that our ideas about external objects come from our sense experience. For example we know that something is hot by using our sense of touch. We know that flowers smell nice by using our sense of smell. Locke calls the knowledge and ideas we obtain through our senses sensation.

The operations of our minds, the other source of them:

Locke recognises that we also form ideas that are outside what we can understand through sense experience. He claims that these other ideas come from reflection. By this he means that there are things which we know by reflecting on the workings of our minds. He believes that everyone is conscious of their mind working and the way in which ideas are formed within the mind. For example, ideas about love cannot be formed through sense experience and instead ideas about love are formed by reflecting on our previous experience of love.

All our ideas are of the one or the other of these:

Locke highlights his firm belief that ideas are not formed through any other method other than through sensation and reflection and challenges the reader to try and argue against his theory as he is certain that he is correct.

Observable in children:

Locke backs up his ideas about sensation and reflection by using the example of a child. He says if a child grows up seeing only black and white until he is a man, there is no way that he could have ideas about any other colours until he sees them because this knowledge can only be gained through sense experience - it is not something which is innate. This example supports his theory that there are only two ways to gain knowledge.

Men are differently furnished with these, according to the different objects they converse with:

Locke vaguely discusses the importance of seeking knowledge here. He states that men who do not experience things will never be able to gain an understanding of them. Similarly, men who do not take the time to reflect on the workings of their minds will not be able to fully understand or appreciate their ideas, nor will they be able to form further ideas other than what they are told or understand to be true.

Ideas of the later, because they need attention:

Locke suggests that the reason why it takes a long time for children to fully understand the workings of their mind, or the ideas that dwell there, is because they do not experience anything which makes a lasting impression on them; they may experience things and be told things but they do not register in the mind. Locke says that it only later on in life when the child needs that information that they then reflect on the basic ideas in their mind, and only then do the fully start to comprehend and understand these ideas.

The soul begins to have ideas, when it begins to perceive:

Locke states that having ideas and perception are the same things. He explains that the ideas of the soul and the perceptions of the body and mind start at the same time. Locke suggests that the soul is able to think of things as well as think of itself and will continue to think until it ceases to exist.

The soul thinks not always, for this wants proof:

Locke then goes back on his ideas about the soul claiming that he does not know enough about the subject of the soul to give an definitive statements about it. He believes that the ideas of the soul are not the essence of the soul but are an operation of the soul. The soul is not solely designed to think, but this does not mean that it is not always thinking.

It is not always conscious of it:

Locke states that the "the soul in a waking man is never without thought." However the soul can continue to think while the man is sleeping, although it is difficult to comprehend something which not being conscious of its thinking. He then questions whether it is possible for the soul to think and feel pleasure and pain while the man is sleeping. He uses the example of Socrates, stating that Socrates awake is a different person to Socrates asleep and Socrates asleep is a separate person to the soul.

If a sleeping man thinks without knowing it, the sleeping and waking man are two persons

Locke explains that in order for the soul to think whilst a man is asleep then it "must necessarily be conscious of its own perceptions." He says that it would be a contradiction for men to believe that the soul cannot live outside of the body when they willingly accept that animals are bodies living without souls - why shouldn't it be possible for the opposite to occur? He raises the point that if the soul is thinking separate to the body while the man is asleep, then the soul can choose to think wherever it wants, for example it could choose to think in the body of someone else. And if the soul of the sleeping man is in the waking man then that means that two men have only one soul between them.

That men dream without remembering it, in vain urged.

Locke explains how the soul can think constantly, even when the body is asleep, but that the memory will not retain any of those thoughts. He also highlights though that this would need a certain of evidence before it can be proved to be true.

That a man should be busy thinking and yet not retain it in the next moment, very probable:

The idea that the soul can think independently without the mind being able to recall these thoughts would "make two persons in one man." But could it be possible that the mind is also thinking but is simply not aware of it?

No ideas but from sensation or reflection, evident, if we observe children:

Hicks makes his view clear by stating that he does not believe that "the soul thinks before the senses have furnished it with ideas to think on" - meaning that the soul can think, but can only think about ideas that have been 'given' to it through our sensation and reflection experiences.  Thinking then becomes "exercise" for the soul and that by thinking it improves and expands on those ideas.

If it shall be demanded then, when a man begins to have any ideas?

Hick believes that a man first starts thinking "when he first has any sense experience." He thinks this because he does not believe that ideas are able to exist in the mind until they have not been experienced in reality.

The origin of all our knowledge:

Hick believes that the origin of all knowledge are "impressions that are made on our senses by outward objects." We then gain experience of these outward objects and can then gain further knowledge of them, or reflect on what we already know and form more opinions in our mind. He states that "the mind is fitted to receive the impressions made on it" through sensation or reflection.

In the reception of simple ideas, the understanding is for the most part passive:

Hick claims that the mind does not actively start seeking knowledge, instead sensation and reflection occur while the mind is passive. He states that our senses somewhat impose ideas onto our mind, for example our sense of taste will give our mind the idea on whether we like certain foods or not. Despite this though Hick stresses that "no man can be wholly ignorant of what he does when he thinks."