John Locke, Research Paper Example

Introduction

It is difficult to accurately assess, or even know, the true influence of 17^th century philosopher John Locke. On one level, and more related to his own era, it is clear that Locke’s thinking in regard to religion, politics, and the true identity of man had very specific impacts and profoundly influenced philosophers of his own time and in centuries to come. On another, however, the very scope of Locke’s presence in these ways defies categorization. His ideas, increasingly absorbed into Western thought, were then shaped by other people and cultures as they saw fit. This translates to a sphere of influence nearly impossible to comprehend. Nonetheless, it is still possible to trace how Locke’s thinking, altered or not, has had enormous repercussions on Western culture. It is an impact that still exerts power today. In the following, three forms of how Locke’s philosophy changed Western thinking will be noted, all of which stand as immense contributions to the Western concepts and practices of government, religion, and a deeper understanding of human knowledge itself.

Contributions

Given the range of Locke’s ideologies and thinking, no single element of them may be said to have had more impact than another. At the same time, and famously, Locke’s thinking was a major element in the political and governmental changes occurring in the 17^th century. Locke is widely perceived as an ideological architect for the foundation of a truly republican state, and with good cause. It is also important to note that his own thinking evolved, just as he was very much a product of a monarchical society. Locke is given a great deal of credit for providing the fundamental ideas behind the United States’ Declaration of Independence; many of his own words, in fact, appear in the document, as well as in other American statements of the time (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni 32). In later writings Locke did acknowledge that, in extreme cases, revolution was a duty of the people. This reasoning, however, developed from a careful examination of the circumstances that would later encourage the American resistance. In 17^th century England, centuries of accepted doctrine were changing, and largely because of the near-tyranny of the Stuart kings. James I created rising forces of dissent by virtue of his insistence on royal power as being unquestioned, and deserving of complete obedience in all matters (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni 32). It is likely that this shift from the more cooperative government of Elizabeth fueled the ideological and governmental opposition then taking shape. However it occurred, however, Locke asserted beliefs in stark contrast to the regal stance. For Locke, there could be no valid belief in a monarch as having absolute power invested by God. He completely rejected the notion as, not only socially and politically offensive, but irrational, as he found it impossible to accept that God would so elevate a single human being (Marshall 52).

It is important to recognize that, no matter the circumstances surrounding the development of Locke’s philosophy in regard to government, he did not restrict himself to the situation in England. More exactly, Locke approaches the entire issue as a philosopher, rather than as an advocate concerned with a specific time, place, and regime. If he is at least partially reacting to, or influenced by, James’s absolutist sense of monarchy, he uses this to address issues common to all mankind. Locke also bases his political ideas on scripture and logic. As noted, it was unthinkable to him that God, the acknowledged supreme being, would so allocate a similar authority. Then, he turned to sheer reason: “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Locke, EGS). The key here, of course, is consent, for consent cannot exist as a right or concept under absolute rule. Taking his reasoning further, Locke does indeed provide a foundation for the emerging America. Referring to the inherent power of the community of men coming together to form a society, he asserts: “The majority…may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing; and then the form of the government is a perfect democracy” (Locke, EGS). Following ancient traditions of supreme monarchy long in place and exerting untold levels of oppression, this is a contribution as pragmatically enormous as it is philosophically strong.

In an interesting way, Locke’s influence in religion is nearly as “revolutionary” as his impact on political thought. Locke spent decades revising ideas regarding how religion is interpreted and, as will be seen, he incorporated social and political aspects into his theological views. It is likely that here as well the current conditions of his homeland fueled these processes. England was undergoing religious conflict in terms of Puritans vying for greater power to reform the church, as well as Catholics facing often brutal suppression. Considering all of this, Locke held that only toleration could demonstrate a true conviction of faith. This was based on his reasoning, but also on evidence he carefully noted in his travels. Visiting Cleves in 1665, Locke was impressed by how toleration there enabled Jews, Anabaptists, and Quakers to live together in great harmony. He noted in France that Jews and extreme Protestant sects were equally allowed to practice their faiths, and with similarly positive results for all concerned (Marshall, 2006 599). It was the proof before him, as well as his own power of reason, that encouraged Locke to embrace and promote religious toleration.

That Locke perceived immense social benefits from religious toleration is evident in work he himself undertook in the 1660s, when he helped to draft the constitutions of the Carolinas. Written into these texts is the affirming that Jews, heathens, and “other dissenters from the true faith” be allowed to worship as they chose. In Locke’s view, such legitimate toleration offered two great benefits. On one level, the commercial and social welfare of the society is enhanced because all are working together as equals in all matters; on another, only this permitting of another faith to be observed could lead those worshipers to the true faith (Marshall, 2006 599).

It is no secret that Locke believed in the truth of his own faith as the only genuine one, but this all the more reveals how expansive his thinking was. He does not suggest toleration because he himself requires it; rather, he rationally concludes that any truth may be arrived at when people are free to find their own way. Ideally: “No-one is by nature bound to any particular church or sect; everyone voluntarily joins the society in which he thinks he has found the creed and mode of worship that is truly acceptable to God” (Locke, EGS). As noted, central to this ideology is individual consent, which Locke clearly views as the cornerstone to individual and societal betterment. In religion as in politics, what is in place because of oppressive measures cannot succeed because it defies the true commitment of those involved. More relevant to life after Locke, his views on religious toleration stand today as examples of sane, civilized thinking.

With regard to a third contribution by Locke to humanity, there is his thinking on the nature of knowledge itself. As with government and religion, Locke radically moved away from long-held beliefs in the essence of knowledge, which then go to the identity of man. It had long been believed, and not a little because of religious influences, that the mind of man existed from birth on as a kind of prepared consciousness. Ideas became accepted because they are, in a sense, created by natural processes of the human mind expressing its essence. Certainly, it was felt that beliefs regarding morality were embedded in the human mind, as surely as God had invested all people with a soul. Locke approaches this with a striking degree of clear rationale. In doing so, he essentially defines epistemology itself, or redefines it. Human beings, he reasons, do not enter the world in any way equipped with ideas; instead, there is a blank slate which is then introduced to them and proceeds accordingly: “The senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet: and the mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodged in the memory” (Locke 11).

What is so radical about this is how it departs from the theological influences that traditionally elevated mankind. In simple terms, any animal may learn as Locke describes the process, yet man was always viewed as divinely created, and consequently endowed with powers beyond such rote mechanisms. Just as radically, this thinking then eliminates absolute knowledge as a valid concept. If only experience and instruction create ideas, then there is no foundation of an unalterable truth of knowledge to rely upon. Consequently: “Knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas….In this alone it consists” (Locke 224). In terms of a societal contribution, the result is immeasurable. Locke’s thinking ultimately opens the door to any ideas as potentially reasonable because there is no ultimate “authority of knowledge” to deny this. It also indicates a limitless evolution; if no final standard of knowledge exists, it may then progress as far as human thinking can take it. In Locke’s time and our own, then, this view of epistemology presents a continually expanding potential of knowledge, one always obligated to test itself as it evolves through interactive agreement. It may be termed an essential element for any culture truly seeking to advance.

Conclusion

John Locke’s life and work are certainly too immense to be even briefly explored in a few pages, just as his influences cannot be properly measured. At the same time, it may be confidently asserted that Locke introduced philosophies which would reverberate – and contribute – to society long after he was gone. He helped to formulate actual democracy in an age still clinging to regal authority; he promoted religious toleration when societies were still executing perceived non-believers; and he upheld humanity’s responsibility to knowledge by removing it from any concept of its being an absolute entity unto itself.

Works Cited

Curry, J. A., Riley, R. B., & Battistoni, R. M. Constitutional Government: The American Experience. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2003. Print.

European Graduate School (EGS). Library: John Locke. 2012. Web. <http://www.egs.edu/library/john-locke/quotes/>

Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1996. Print.

Marshall, J. John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.

Marshall, J. John Locke: Resistance, Religion and Responsibility. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.