Locke Book I (Chapter's I-IV)

Book I  JOHN LOCKE “Of Human Understanding” – From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

  In the Introduction of Book I, as it seems to be a trend with Philosophers: 

Locke begins his Essay with his own Philosophical rules. Just as D had detailed, there are certain steps each person must take to reach a higher plane of thinking. Locke’s rules differ slightly, as they are more like personal Goals that he hopes to accomplish through his own evaluation & systematic procedure of reasoning.

“1. An inquiry into the understanding, pleasant & useful… Since it is the understanding that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and gives him all the advantage …”

2. Design… whether those ideas do, in their formation, any or all of them depend on matter or no.”  

3. Method … I shall endeavor to show what knowledge…certainty…evidence & the extent of it. I shall make some inquiry into the nature & grounds of faith or opinion.

4. Useful to know the extent of our comprehension's  

5. Our capacity suited to our state & concerns… 

6. Knowledge of our capacity a cure of skepticism & idleness… 

7. Occasion Of this Essay…

8. What “idea” stands for…”    Excerpts From [Book I (Ch I) pg 1-4] 

Much like D, Locke emphasizes the human’s ability toward reasoning & critical thinking to help establish the validity of general human truths as well as the learned & acquired information we obtain. But Locke’s method will include locating the origin of ideas, why we have them, and how they affect us. He also inquires into the actual representation of an idea – just as D discussed the tangibility of a thought, Locke is not questioning the properties of “ideas”.

    Chapter II – “No Innate Principles in The Mind”

“The Way shown how we come by an knowledge, sufficient to prove it not innate... There is nothing more commonly taken for granted, than that there are certain principles, both speculative & practical, universally agreed upon by all mankind.”  [Book I (Ch II) pg 12]

Just as Plato & Descartes had discussed before him, Locke takes this opportunity to discuss the innate human programming each person is outfitted with from birth. Although, rather than accepting the workings of the mind and body Locke argues a different perspective than most of his predecessors.

In the fact that these random bits of knowledge & information seem to be ingrained in each person from birth it can be assumed that these would therefore be universally understood truths. In the sheer description of the behavior/belief being universally understood we negate the fact that any information could somehow be innate. It suggests that all behaviors, information, values, etc. must be learned in development instead of being fundamental to our existence. Locke takes time to emphasize the difference between innate knowledge, learned knowledge & personal evaluation; each of which are required in the completion of such reasoning.

As another common theme, Locke emphasizes the importance of personal interpretation & information gathering in the evaluation of any piece of information. In contrast to the first portion of his argument, information/knowledge that is not learned must be recognized within the individual through systematic reasoning before it can be accepted as fact. I find it surprising, yet “an innate human truth” that people must question these possibilities. (This is exemplified in Chap’s III & IV )

LOCKE- Chapter 2 end of par. 1

"But because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road, I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by those who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth wherever they find it".


I think what this means is that the information and truth is in your head sitting there, but when it actually comes out and you realize that you have had this information stored you feel that it must be a mistake, but in the end you have to realize and embrace the fact that you do hold truth, knowledge, and wisdom within your mind.

Meditations II- Wax Example

I've chosen to discuss Descartes' Famous Wax Example in a separate entry because I felt it is one of the most compelling arguments within this portion of Meditations. Although it has been discussed in several other blogs; I would like to discuss it in relation to modern day life & personal expectations. 

Summary Of Example: Overall, D wants his readers to understand that our belief and understanding of all things comes from our own perceived judgments of those things at our time of observation. Our cultures have associated descriptive meanings to those items in the form of their names; but to be recognized as such they must feature certain distinguishable traits that contribute to the same conclusion. All human senses contribute to the attainment of such information & the construction of this type of judgment. But depending on our personal evaluation of this information, each person may comprehend a different definition of the same article or item. 

D uses the wax because all people understand that wax is the product of a melted candle, so therefore the mind decides that prior to its melted state, the item being observed must clearly be wax/a candle. Regardless of the fact that the initial shape of the candle is no longer intact, we are able to judge that indeed the recognized puddle of wax was was some point an untarnished, unmodified Candle of Wax- as it was expected to be. 

Class Notes (Feb 11,2008) Regarding "The Wax Example"

-Properties that are first observed may change, but how do you know it's the same piece of wax?

-It can't be judged by the senses because everything has changed, but you know it's wax because you judge it to be so. 

*A subtle, but IMPORTANT distinction: despite the senses of observation report the item as being altered, the mind judges the information & determines its meaning (in contrast with seeing it in the same form)

-Knowledge is gathered by stripping away information you cannot believe and slowly adding to your own discovery of which information is true.

-------------------------------------------------

I thought that this entire concept could be applicable in the sense of interpersonal reaction & expectations. Each person, depending on their background & experience, will expect different things from any new relationship they create. Judgment is passed on new friends, and new opportunities based on what we observe from these situations, in addition to the preconceived concepts we hold to be true regarding such things. 

Depending on the judgments we make, this allows us to generate certain expectations as to the result of that behavior and closely associate the two in the future. 

Personally, I feel this idea is exemplified when "dating someone new"- Upon meeting someone it is human nature to determine your initial attraction or interest in that person depending on their physical nature, style of dress & outward demeanor, etc. Within the first few minutes (if not seconds) immediate decisions are made regarding the quality of this new friend or boy/girlfriend, because of the things we can sense. As you progress into a serious relationship with this prospect, you will continue to make decisions & based reactions generated through your own observations, and altered through your own previous experience. Specifically, if you have been mistreated in a relationship in the past, you will constantly question your partners ability to avoid making the same mistake. If you had trust issues, or commitment issues in a previous relationship those experiences will likely influence relationships in the future because of your predetermined judgments regarding similar items/actions.

-------------------------------------------------

Although we shouldn't let our minds control our ability for reason and reconsideration the basis of human understanding is derived from the things we see, smell, hear, taste & touch. Senses allow establishment of definitive information in all states, because of the basic fundamental meaning of each item/article.

Class Notes on Med II (Feb 11, 2008)

Meditations II- 

-cogito, ergo sum

-res cogitans (thinking thing- mind)

-res extensa (extended thinking thing- body) 

res cogitans vs. res extensa

The concept of thought & mind have no tangible properties. There is no size, or duration of thought it simply occurs.

Thoughts can only appear in the now- Tangible objects (like the black glove example cited in c lass) are occurring at a constant. Thoughts, regardless of their repetitive nature, occur only in the immediate present; and in turn thoughts cannot be categorized by length because they are as long as "now".

This portion can be related to Discourse V, and the discussion of the body as a mechanical object. It is classified as such because of the "physical & time dimensions it must endure".

Res cogitans vs. res extensa- (dualism) D is a supporter of the mind & body working in tandem rather than as 2 separate forces.

"extended" (physical??) things vs. thinking (conceptual??) things

Extended Thinking cannot be verified, because the senses may be lying. Our knowledge of things is vested in our judgement (TBD in separate entry regarding the wax example as featured) 

If our observations deceive us and we see something to be in its assumed state rather than than in its reality then we have fallen victim to the error of our own abilities. 

The Knowledge of God is discussed on pg 54 (paragraphs 12-13) and is summarized in the Synopsis. D discusses modernity & the free mind.

The Heart of D's entire argument is to promote a free mind, able to conclude its own facts & research its own queries. 

(Notes Taken by Michaela Douglas)

Discourse between 13 & 14

"It is true that we never see anyone pulling down all the houses in a city for the sole purpose of rebuilding them in a different style and of making the streets more attractive; but one does see very well that many people tear down their own houses in order to rebuild them, and that in some cases they are even forced to do so when their houses are in danger of collapsing and when the foundations are not very secure."

I think this is referring to people getting older. Its almost like cosmetic surgery, people get old and they start to need repairs, new knees, face lifts, etc. And its usually only a few people that do this so you would never see the Whole Street (all the old people) getting freshened up. And some people when they are in danger of dying they need repair to keep them going for that little bit longer. I feel that the similarities between the old buildings and old people is uncanny.