Introduction
It
is said that a person’s philosophy is merely a reflection of personal
temperament and the peculiar circumstances that have shaped the course of life.
This is specially true in the case of John Locke, for he was a man who was
deeply involved in the affairs of his country, as well as one whose judgment
was held in high esteem by the more prominent scholars of his day. It is for
this reason that some familiarity with his life and the times in which he lived
is essential for an understanding of his philosophical works.
John
Locke was born on August 29, 1632 in the village of Wington in Somersetshire,
not many miles from Bristol, England. He was the elder of two sons and like the
father of rationalism, never married. When he was fourteen years of age, he was
placed in Westminster school, where he remained for six years. In 1652, he was
granted a scholarship in Christ church in oxford, and it was there that he made
his home for a period of fourteen years. The school had for a long time under
influence of the Aristotelian tradition, and Locke resented the idea of being
told what he should think. There he discovered that what was called general
freedom was bondage. He was well aware about harsh and cruel wars of his
country, when Catholics had burnt Protestants at stake and Protestants had
returned the compliment with having catholic priests hanged, drawn and
quartered. He resolved to do human knowledge. During the winter of 1665, Locke
spent several months in the diplomatic service at the court of the elector of
Brandenburg in Germany. When he was back to England, he developed the
friendship with the Earl of Shaftesbury who became a great help in his life
later on. He died in 1704.
It
was at the close of a series of discussions that took place among a small group
of friends who were accustomed to meet regularly that Locke began writing of
what eventually became the Essay
concerning human understanding. The Essay
concerning human understanding is sectioned into four books. My only focus
of presenting this paper is based on Locke’s fourth book i.e. knowledge. John
Locke’s fourth book focuses on knowledge in general, that it can be thought of
as the sum of ideas and perceptions. Locke discusses the limit of human
knowledge, and whether knowledge can be said to be accurate or truthful. Thus
there is a distinction between what an individual might claim to know, as part
of a system of knowledge, and whether or not that claimed knowledge is an
actual.
Main idea of the book
Knowledge,
according to Locke, is the agreement or disagreement of ideas with one another.
“Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connexion
(sic) and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of any of our ideas.”[1]
According to him the nature of knowledge itself, asking what knowledge is and
in what areas we can hope to attain it. “Where this perception is, there is
knowledge; and where it not, there, though we may fancy, guess, or believe, yet
we always come short of knowledge.”[2] He
agrees that the fact that all knowledge has its origin in the sensations and
reflections and reflections which occur within the human mind. He defines
knowledge as, “that all knowledge lies only in the perception of the agreement
or disagreement of our own ideas, the visions of an enthusiast and the reasoning
of a sober man will be equally certain.”[3]
Locke
identifies four sorts of agreement and disagreement that reason can perceive to
produce knowledge; (1) identity (blue is blue) and diversity blue is not
yellow, (2) relation (two triangles with equal bases located between the same
two parallel lines are equal triangles), (3) co-existence (iron is always susceptible
to magnets), and (4) realization. Locke explained all these points with an example;
“blue is not yellow; is of identity. Two triangles upon equal bases between two
parallels are equal; is of relation. Iron is susceptible of magnetical
impressions; is of coexistence. God is; of real-existence.”[4]
Locke
distinguishes between three grades of knowledge; first on is intuitive
knowledge which provides the highest degree of certainty.
Thus the mind perceives that
white is not black, that circle is not a triangle, that three are more than
two, and equal to one and two. Such kind of truths the mind perceives at the
first sight of the ideas together, by bare intuition, without the intervention
of any other idea; and this kind of knowledge is the clearest and most certain
that human frailty is capable of.[5]
Secondly,
demonstrative, which requires some sort of proof or reasoning.
Thus the mind, being willing to
know the agreement or disagreement in bigness between the three angles of a
triangle and two right ones, cannot, by an immediate view and comparing them,
do it: because the three angles of a triangle cannot be brought at once, and
compared with any other one or two angles; and so of this the mind has no
immediate, no intuitive knowledge. In this case the mind is fain to find out
some other angles, to which the three angles of a triangle have equality; and
finding those equal to two right ones, comes to know their equality to two
right ones.[6]
And thirdly, sensitive which is about the
existence of an external world.
For I ask any one, whether he be
not invincibly conscious to himself of a different perception when he looks on
the sun by day, and thinks on it by night; when he actually tastes wormwood, or
smells a rose, or only thinks on that savour or odour? We as plainly find the
difference there is between any idea revived in our minds by our own memory,
and actually coming into our minds by our senses, as we do between any two
distinct ideas.[7]
The
extent to which human knowledge is reliable is determined by the nature of the
experiences on which it is based, concerning that which lies beyond experience,
we can know nothing at all. So the best we can do is to observe certain
qualities in the world that tend to occur together on a regular basis. Metaphysicians
who write about the nature of the universe as a whole, or who think they can
tell us something about the world of spirits. Their views can be nothing more
that idle speculations so, their conclusions may be either confirmed or denied.
As Locke puts it; “ since we know not where in thinking consists, nor to what
sort of substances the almighty has been pleased to give that power, which cannot
be in any created being, but merely by the good pleasure and bounty of the creator”[8]
The
human mind is limited by the number and kinds of experience. That are possible,
the scope of one’s knowledge is relatively small. No individual can ever hope
to know more than a small fraction of all that exists. “I doubt, as to these,
whether our knowledge reaches much farther than our experience; or whether we
can come to the discovery of most of these powers; and be certain that they are
in any subject, by the connexion (sic) with of those ideas which to us make its
essence.”[9]
Although Locke doesn’t seem to think we will ever be able to know more about
the true nature of things, he is hopeful that we can understand existence, and
the properties of things that exist in the world, much more thoroughly.
Locke
does believe that human judgments may be either true or false; he finds it
necessary to develop a different standard for determining the validity of one’s
beliefs. The standard which he proposes is that of the agreement or
disagreement of ideas with one another. “Whereby the mind takes its ideas to
agree or disagree; or, which is the same, any proposition to be true or false,
without perceiving demonstrative evidence in the proofs.”[10]
Truth, as he understands it, is not something that exists externally, nor is it
something that is independent of one’s thinking. “Truth then seems to me, in
the proper import of the word, to signify nothing but the joining or separating
of signs as the things signified by them do agree or disagree one with another.”[11]
The truth or error of which we speak is something that comes into being when we
begin to make propositions consists in the joining or separating of signs, as
the things signified by them do agree or disagree with one another.
Locke
tells us that we perceive about existence so plainly and so certainly that
there is no need for proof. “To show, therefore, that we are capable of
knowing, i.e; being certain, that there is a God, and how we may come by this
certainty. I think we need go no farther than ourselves, and that undoubted
knowledge we have of our own existence.”[12]
With reference to the existence of external world and of the existence of God,
we have a very high degree of certainty although it is somewhat less that the
certainty we have of our own existence. “It is plain to me we have a more
certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of anything our senses have
not immediately discovered to us.”[13]
Locke proposes, we infer the existence of god as the cause of the universe and
as the author of the moral principles by which human conduct ought to be
regulated. “He that will consider the infinite power, wisdom and goodness of
the creator of all things, will find reason to think it was not all laid out
upon so inconsiderable, mean, and important a creature as he will find man to
be; who, in all probability, is one of the lowest of all intellectual beings.”[14]
The
existence of God, he holds, is logically necessary since it is impossible for
something to come from nothing. “And I appeal to every one’s own thoughts
whether he cannot as easily by conceive matter produced by nothing, as thought
to be produced by pure matter, when before there was no such things as thought
or an intelligent being existing.”[15]Locke
finds it necessary to rely on revelation for our knowledge about God and the
basis for determining what is right or wrong conduct. He observes that in so
doing there are several precautions which need to be observed. “That there are
minds and thinking beings in other men, as well as himself, every man has a
reason, from their words and actions, to be satisfied: and knowledge of his own
mind cannot suffer a man that considers, to be ignorant that there is God.”[16]
Revealed truth may very easily be confused
with blind superstitions or wishful thinking. “Knowledge being to be had only
of visible certain truth, error is not a fault of our knowledge, but a mistake
of our judgment, giving assent to that which is not true.”[17] Thus
in order to avoid errors, some criteria must be established for determining a
genuine revelation of truth.
For bating some very few, and
those, if I may so call them, superficial, ideas of spirit, which by reflection
we get of our own, and from thence the best we can collect of the farther of all
spirits; the eternal independent author of them and us and all things, we have
no certain information so much as of the existence of other spirits but by
revelation.[18]
If revelation is to be relied upon at all as a
source of truth, it must be capable of imparting to human beings at least some
things that go beyond the limitations of their finite minds. Thus the
revelation must always be tested by the criterion of reasonableness in relation
to the knowledge that has been obtained in other ways.
Locke
argues regarding miracles that they are possible if they are supported by the
testimony of those who produced the writings that are regarded as revelation.
Our only basis for rejecting any of the miracle stories reported in the Bible
would be some concrete evidence that the actual events which took place are not
described accurately.
We
base our argument on the similarity between propositions to our own experience
and to the experiences we have heard described by others. Locke examines the
relation between reason and faith. He defines reason as being the faculty we
use to obtain judgment and knowledge. Faith is the acceptance of revelation and
has its own truths, which reason cannot discover. “I say, that the same truths
may be discovered and conveyed down from revelation, which are discoverable to
us by reason and by those ideas we naturally may have.”[19]He
believes that reason has a very important place in the acquisition of human
knowledge. Its function is primarily that of testing the validity of ideas
which may be derived from different sources. Nothing can be regarded as true
unless it meets the demands of reasonableness. Thus, Locke is not wrong when he
writes, “but God has not been so sparing to men to make them barely two- logged
creatures, and left it for Aristotle to make them rational.”[20]
Finally,
Locke divides all of human understanding into three sciences: natural
philosophy, or the study of things to gain knowledge; ethics or the study of
how it is best to act; and logic, or the study of words and signs.
Critical analysis
Book
IV contains twenty-one chapters, and they are devoted to the task of making
clear what Locke believes to be true about the nature and human knowledge.
Personally I liked the argument of John Locke on knowledge. But as we know that
ideas and beliefs can never be entirely correct so as they are inconsistent
either with themselves or with any known facts. Thus, with regard to the work
of John Locke on theory of knowledge, contains both positive and not so
positive side of it.
By
defining knowledge as the agreement or disagreement of ideas with one another,
Locke has called attention to at least one important aspect of the knowing
process. Sensations and reflections are the sources from which many of our
ideas are obtained, and comparison of these ideas with one another is one
method of determining whether they are true even though it may not be the only
way in which this may be done. It is the method that is used successfully in
the field of mathematics or any other science of a purely formal nature. But if
this were the only way of determining what is true in any area of
investigation, we could never know anything about an outside world. Our
knowledge is limited to whatever takes place in our own minds. This kind of
conclusion was wholly unaccepted because he insisted that true ideas are in
agreement with the qualities which are present in things.
Memory
is said to be the store house for knowledge that is always present in one’s
consciousness. It can be seen quite readily that his statement implies a
continuing self which does the remembering and which recognizes that it is a
memory rather that an experience that is entirely new. Locke’s belief in the
existence of a self was probably correct, but certainly it could be derived
neither from the sensations nor from any reflections that are based soles upon
them.
Locke
maintains that there are different degrees of certainties in what we believe
about our own existence, the existence of God, and the phenomena of nature. It
appears to be true but requires a simple analysis to point out some of the
inadequacies connected with each of them.
Locke’s
argument for the existence of God, as well as the existence of an outside
world, is based on the premise that whatever exists must have been caused by
something other than itself. Now this is undoubtedly true so far as the world
of our experience is concerned, but this does not warrant the belief that the
final cause of events is something that lies outside of the realm of human
experience.
Demonstration
knowledge can yield certainty in the field of mathematics, but it does not
yield same result when applied to the phenomena of nature or of God, but he was
evidently mistaken in his belief that it could be demonstrated or proved by
logical deduction from the facts of human experience.
Locke
is specially concerned to point out the limitations of the human mind. It is
true that our belief about the external world must be formed on the basis of
that which takes place in our minds. It is obvious that we cannot know the real
nature of things in them.
Locke
insists that, while we do not have any certain knowledge about future events,
we can have probable knowledge of when and how they will take place. If we
cannot know anything about the order of nature, then there is no basis for
asserting that we have even probable knowledge about future events. This is
another instance in which Locke’s beliefs may be correct.
Locke
affirms that no one can have complete and exact knowledge about the entire
universe. It is impossible for anyone to have any knowledge about that which
goes beyond the limits of human experience.
However,
the fact that our knowledge is limited is a philosophical rather than practical
matter. We do have some principles that may serve as guides towards a correct
view of things. we know that our belief in order to be true must be consistent
with themselves, in harmony with all known facts and they must provide us with
a reasonable interpretation our own experiences. Locke admits that we can never
have real knowledge when it comes to natural science. Rather than encouraging
us to stop bothering with science, Locke seems to say instead that we should be
aware of its limitations.
Bibliography
Main Source,
Locke,
John. An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. Edited by A.S. Pringle-Pattison. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1924.
Secondary sources,
Martin,
C.B. and Armstrong, D.M. ed. Locke and
Berkeley: A Collection of Critical Essays. London:
University Of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
Ayer,
A.J. and Winch, Raymond, ed. British
Empirical Philosophers: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Reid
and J.S. Mill. London: Routledge and Ragan Paul
LTD, (first published in 1952).
[1] John
Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Edited by Pringle-Pattison A.S., Oxford:
At the Clarendon Press, 1924, 255.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.,
287.
[4]
Ibid., 257.
[5]
Ibid., 261.
[6] Locke,
op. cit, 262.
[7] Ibid., 266.
[8] Ibid.,
270.
[9] Ibid.,
276.
[10] Locke,
op. cit, 333.
[11]
Ibid., 291.
[12]
Ibid., 311.
[13]
Ibid., 313.
[14]
Ibid., 281.
[15]
Locke, op. cit, 315.
[16]
Ibid., 284.
[17]
Ibid., 363.
[18]
Ibid., 284.
[19]
Locke, op. cit, 356.
[20]
Ibid., 347.
