Locke

WinstonSmith

I'm currently reading his 'Essay Concerning Human Understanding' and would like to chat about the key ideas within it with one who has knowledge of it. For example, today I am reading of his opinions on free will and find them fascinating. He declares that free will as is meant in passing conversation can never be, but after a redefinition suggests that mankind can never have free will. any opinions?

Joe1919

I read quite a bit of Locke for a module and still have his book and notes. He deals with free will in Book II, Ch XXI and I think he is an early compatibilist. In section 14, he says ......insignificant to ask,. whethers mans will be free..........
Locke believes that we are free 'agents' (section 21) in that we have a choice but this choice is determined by 'the uneasiness of desire' (section 33).
The drunkard (as a free agent) then is free in that he can choose whether to go to the pub or not, but he may have no choice over his 'uneasiness of desire' and this 'uneasiness of desire' may determine his will.
In this respect then, we are free agents in that we can choose our actions but we may have no control over our desires. i.e. our desires are pre-determined.

This book has a good discussion on same.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=vwA3YClcwQwC&pg=PA128&dq=locke+agency+will+lowe

WinstonSmith

Thanks for the reply Joe. His ideas on free will are certainly interesting and the chapter you mention is the one I'm reading right now. I'm a bit unsure about how to approach it to be honest. He does suggest that humans have freedom in respect that they have the power to decide whether or not they follow their will, but have not the ability to perform both simultanaeously, whereas a higher order being may have such an ability and is therefore truly free. A perfect spot for a deity within his philosophy in complete contradiction of Hume who was heavily influenced by him.

waitinforatrain

Joe1919 wrote: »

In this respect then, we are free agents in that we can choose our actions but we may have no control over our desires. i.e. our desires are pre-determined.
[/url]

Desire can be overcome through practice.

Joe1919

WinstonSmith wrote: »

. A perfect spot for a deity within his philosophy in complete contradiction of Hume who was heavily influenced by him.

Some people argue that most (if not all) philosophy takes place against a historical background or context. We also have to be able to read between the lines in many cases.
Locke's essay was written after Descartes meditations and also around the time of the English 'Glorious Revolution'.(1688)
The whole of Book I deals with his 'blank slate' philosophy and psychology. There are no innate principles. This can mean that we are all born equal to some extent. What the difference between a pauper and a king? (divine right of kings etc.)This principle can have important political implications and is still very controversial today. e.g. Is gender constructed or innate etc. (Steven Pinker wrote a book called 'The blank slate' which attacks this). Locke has a go at certain 'authority' here.(I. iv. 24)

The second thing about Locke is that although Locke goes out of his way to defend religion, many have argued that this is inconsistent with his philosophy and his philosophy makes more sense when read as not religious. i.e. although his philosophy claims to be religious, there is very little room for religion when one looks in detail at his philosophy. e.g 'The existence of spirits not knowable (VI. xi 12 )
For example, Locke appears to be a materialist in terms of defending the Irish scientist Robert Boyles (Boyles law) corpuscularian theory (IV. iii. 16).

Locke is also a nominalist and indeed a sceptic. He claims that we cant know the 'real essence' of anything . (III, vi, 9)
Locke also say we know nothing of 'substance'.
Locke essay was attacked at that time and he tries to defend and clarify some of these issues in the 'Stillingfleet Correspondence'.

For these reasons then, I would tend to see Locke as a sceptic and a precursor of Hume.

I don't see any room for a 'deity' in his philosophy or in connection with his ideas of 'freedom'. Locke chronologically fits in between Hobbes and Hume, and Locke (imo) does a better job than the others in terms of fitting in 'God' as a sort of afterthought into his system in order to make his philosophy more politically acceptable and more pratical and usable. Locke was very successful in this respect and Locke's political thought and in particular his defence of property greatly influenced the American Constitution and hence shapes much political thought today. Hobbs and Hume were perhaps more honest.

Lockes theory of freedom, although praiseworthy has been criticised for not taking the idea of 'second order desires' sufficiently into account. i.e. Can I desire a desire?
For example, I may be a drunkard (Lockes example) and desire drink, but I may also have a desire to be sober and respectable. I then have two conflicting desires. The desire to be sober may be a deeper and connected with my pride whereas the desire to get drunk is more sensual, a more animal desire. I may then, as a free agent take certain actions to avoid getting drunk, such as avoid pubs, drinking buddies, as I am aware that my animal sensual desire, which is more immediate, will get the better of my deeper (more rational) desire for been sober if I go into a pub or meet up with certain friends. etc.

This idea of controlling or been able to will our desires has always been troublesome. The Drunkard may desire that he no longer has a desire for drink but can he do this? To what extent can we control our lusts?
Anyone who tries to diet, give up cigarettes etc. faces the same problem. We may have some control over how much we eat, drink or smoke but the appetite seems to have a mind of its own. One can desire not to desire certain foods, drink, cigarettes etc. but it seems difficult, if not impossible to curb these desires and hence one can be at war with ones desires.