I must confess that if it wasn't for the lack of empiricism (or maybe better to say less empiricism) and the lack of job security I can see myself being a philosophy or history major. Both topics fascinate me and to me one of the best things in the world is a good beer and a good open ended conversation about either topic without the need to 'win' (ie dominate the discussion and stroke your ego). Since the last time I wrote on Rand whom I hold in contempt I thought this time I'd write on Locke whom I would contend is the single most influential philosophy of his period. Do not believe me? Well join me below and let's see if I can convince you.
To do this properly first I want to briefly talk about the man himself and then move on to his career. John Locke (1632 to 1704) was the son of a country lawyer (who was also named John) and Agnes Keene. Sadly I don't know (nor could I find anything) on Locke's mother other the she was a Puritan as was Locke's father. This does not really surprise me given that both were Puritans and the time period involved. Locke's father though seems to have been a highly successful lawyer who also fought for the Parliamentarian forces during the English Civil war.
Locke attended several prestigious schools including Westminster in London under the sponsorship of a member of Parliament (Alexander Popham his father's former commander) and then Christ Church in Oxford. According to all that know Locke he was a brilliant student but had a clear preference for the work of modern philosophers like Descartes rather then the classics. From Oxford he would be award first his bachelor's degree, a master's degree and then a bachelor of medicine. However between his master's and his bachelor's of medicine Locke looking for a job (I suppose it's a comfort to know that that search transcends time) became the personal physician of Lord Ashley in London. It was while working under Lord Ashley's employment that Locke would be inspired to write an Essay Concerning Human Understanding. It was also though Lord Ashley that Locke would become acquainted with and influenced by the Whig movement. The full events are honestly worth it's own diary if not several but the long and short of it is that it was during this period that Lcoke's Two Treatises of Civil Government is thought to have been written as well as his thoughts on natural rights is thought to have been formed. Locke would eventually flee to the Netherlands in 1683 due to his suspect involvement in an attempt to assassinate Charles the Second and his brother James. Most current histories I've read indicate this was nothing more then an attempt to silence a strong critic of the king and monarchies in general.
While Locke would indeed eventually return to England he spent his time in the Netherlands writing and interacting with the same free thinking 'rebels' that had so shaped his thinking.
There are many things in the philosophy that Locke espouses that is worth talking about however there are 2 things I think that make Locke so pivotal. First is his strong advocation for religious tolerance and second is his stance on natural rights. Locke's views on religious tolerance are today considered to be not only accepted and normal even expected. This wasn't the case for Locke's England. He lived during a period where there was a real fear that Catholicism might be taking over. This is to say nothing of the rampant rampant violence between all the varies denominations of Christianity along with the wars of religion between the varies monarchies.
Locke's conclusion rested on two key points. That governments created more unrest by trying to enforce prohibitions against any religion except the state's. As Locke would argue while force can coerce obedience it does not change belief nor is force the proper way to ensure salvation. The first part of that is probably regarded as obvious in today's world but the second probably will confuse some. What Locke meant is that given by that is that human judges are no reliable authority on religious truth. The second point Locke argued that the state really had no business becoming involved in religion. That government exists to promote external interests where as religion is about internal interests. As these interests are separate they should be treated separate.
It does need to be said that as much as Locke advocated tolerance it was not total tolerance. He for example would state that atheists given this tolerance because promises, covenants and oaths have no 'hold' on them. I personally wonder how much of this Locke really believed and how much it was simply a matter of not offending too many people. Locke would also exclude the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds that they gave their service up to the pope who was a foreign prince. I personally find it harder to fault Locke for this as at that point in time the pope really was a foreign prince with his own territory. Like his views on atheism I wonder what Locke would think of the modern Roman Catholic Church.
To myself though the major thing isn't where Locke failed but rather his ability to put the idea of religious tolerance out there. As always seems to be the case full change has come slowly but it is thinks to Locke (and Hobbes) that we are able to live in a world that is much much more tolerant world.
The other major idea that to me makes Locke so influential is the concept of natural rights. Locke identified them as "life, liberty and estate" which should sound really familiar I think. Like Hobbes Locke would argue these right are inalienable and derived from the rule of God which naturally is higher then the rule of any government. This more then anything was what caused Locke so much trouble as Locke lived in a period of the absolute monarch. And while people today might joke about if (insert person) does it then it can't be illegal that was the reality of the European monarchs. The Bill of Rights was over a hundred years ago and the idea that a king or queen simply could not do what they felt like was controversial.
I thank you for reading the diary itself even if it feels a bit thin. My goal was not to repeat Locke's arguments as others have done that (and done so much better then I). I do hope I have provided enough to tempt people to read Locke and his works as they are quite interesting.