Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Stewart Duncan

This introduction presents the project of the book, to examine the seventeenth-century debate about materialism that began with the work of Thomas Hobbes. Among those who responded directly to Hobbes, the book focuses on Henry More, Ralph Cudworth, and Margaret Cavendish. The introduction and book then look at John Locke’s discussion of materialism in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which draws on and responds to that earlier discussion. A central question for all these philosophers is whether human minds are material. They also consider whether animal minds are material, and whether God is. Other philosophical issues, including theories of substance and of the nature of ideas, are repeatedly involved in the discussion. The relation of these discussions to the work of René Descartes is noted.

Author(s):  
Stewart Duncan

Are human beings purely material creatures, or is there something else to them, an immaterial part that does some (or all) of the thinking, and might even be able to outlive the death of the body? This book is about how a series of seventeenth-century philosophers tried to answer that question. It begins by looking at the views of Thomas Hobbes, who developed a thoroughly materialist account of the human mind, and later of God as well. All this is in obvious contrast to the approach of his contemporary René Descartes. After examining Hobbes’s materialism, the book considers the views of three of his English critics: Henry More, Ralph Cudworth, and Margaret Cavendish. Both More and Cudworth thought Hobbes’s materialism radically inadequate to explain the workings of the world, while Cavendish developed a distinctive, anti-Hobbesian materialism of her own. The second half of the book focuses on the discussion of materialism in John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, arguing that we can better understand Locke’s discussion if we see how and where he is responding to this earlier debate. At crucial points Locke draws on More and Cudworth to argue against Hobbes and other materialists. Nevertheless, Locke did a good deal to reveal how materialism was a genuinely possible view, by showing how one could develop a detailed account of the human mind without presuming it was an immaterial substance.


Author(s):  
David S. Sytsma

This chapter argues for Baxter’s importance as a theologian engaged with philosophy. Although Baxter is largely known today as a practical theologian, he also excelled in knowledge of the scholastics and was known in the seventeenth century also for his scholastic theology. He followed philosophical trends closely, was connected with many people involved in mechanical philosophy, and responded directly to the ideas of René Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict de Spinoza. As a leading Puritan and nonconformist, his views are especially relevant to the question of the relation of the Puritan tradition to the beginnings of modern science and philosophy. The chapter introduces the way in which “mechanical philosophy” will be used, and concludes with a brief synopsis of the argument of the book.


Think ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 67-71
Author(s):  
Terence Moore

The seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke, transported to the twenty-first century, has been discussing with Terence Moore, a twenty-first century student of language, questions concerning words, meanings and understanding. In this conversation Moore tackles Locke on the role he assigns to happiness in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.


Author(s):  
Stewart Duncan

This chapter investigates Locke’s views about materialism, by looking at the discussion in Essay IV.x. There Locke—after giving a cosmological argument for the existence of God—argues that God could not be material, and that matter alone could never produce thought. In discussing the chapter, I pay particular attention to some comparisons between Locke’s position and those of two other seventeenth-century philosophers, René Descartes and Ralph Cudworth. Making use of those comparisons, I argue for two main claims. The first is that the important argument of Essay IV.x.10 is fundamentally an argument about the causation of perfections. Indeed, Locke gives multiple such arguments in the chapter. My second main claim is that my proposed reading of IV.x is not merely consistent with what Locke says elsewhere about superaddition, but also provides reasons to favor a particular understanding of what superaddition is.


Dialogue ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.B. Drury

In the seventeenth century, the concept of natural law was linked with that of “innate ideas”. Natural laws were said to be ideas imprinted by nature or by God on men's minds and were the very foundation of religion and morality. Locke's attack on innate ideas in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding is therefore considered to be an assault on natural law. Modern critics like Peter Laslett, W. von Leyden and Philip Abrams are of the opinion that Locke's critique of innate ideas in the Essay cannot be reconciled with the concept of natural law in the Two Treatises of Government.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSANNE SREEDHAR ◽  
JULIE WALSH

ABSTRACT:When Locke mentions polygamy in his writings, he does not condemn the practice and even seems to endorse it under certain conditions. This attitude is out of step with that of many of his contemporaries. Identifying the philosophical reasons that lead Locke to have this attitude about polygamy motivates our project. Because Locke never wrote a treatise on ethics, we look to a number of different texts, but focus onAn Essay Concerning Human UnderstandingandEssays on the Law of Naturein order to outline his basic ethical theory. We argue that this theory, the elements of which include moral mixed modes, the law of nature, and the comparison of these modes with this law, is broad enough to accommodate practices such as polygamy. Our interpretation shows that Locke's line of thought on marriage is strikingly flexible for the seventeenth century and even compared to some public debates on marriage in our time.


Author(s):  
Kenneth P. Winkler

The English philosopher Henry More was one of the leaders of the movement known as Cambridge Platonism. Like his Cambridge colleague Ralph Cudworth, More elaborated a constructive metaphysics which, although deeply informed by the new philosophy and science of the seventeenth century, recovered what More saw as an ancient truth or ‘cabbala’. The articulation of this truth was an exercise of reason, guided by innate notions or inherent, God-given cognitive propensities. More’s ultimate aim as a philosopher was religious or ethical. His ‘one main Design’, he explained, was ‘The knowledge of God, and therein of true Happiness, so far as Reason can cut her way through those darknesses and difficulties she is encumbred with in this life’ (1662: iv). Among the central themes of the ancient truth More rediscovered and defended were the existence of a God whose leading attributes are wisdom and goodness; the immateriality and immortality of the human soul (the hope of immortality being, as More explained in the Preface to his poem Psychathanasia (1642), ‘the very nerves and sinews’ of religion); a dualism of active spirit and passive matter that differed significantly from the dualism of Descartes, despite More’s early enthusiasm for (and continuing engagement with) Cartesianism; the animation of matter by an immaterial but unthinking spirit of nature; and the existence of an infinite, substantial space, really distinct from matter, in which God is everywhere present and everywhere potentially active. More’s appeals to experiment in defence of the spirit of nature provoked criticism from Robert Boyle. His doctrine of infinite, substantial space was (in the opinion of some historians) an important influence on Isaac Newton. Space seems, on More’s portrayal, to be something divine; this troubled George Berkeley, who thought that by assigning space the ‘incommunicable’ or unshareable attributes of God, More in the end encouraged the atheism he worked so hard to defeat. More is usually represented as a rationalist in religion: ‘I conceive’, he once wrote, ‘Christian Religion rational throughout’ (1662: iv). It is important to distinguish, however, between More’s appeal to reason as a writer defending Christianity, and his appraisal of reason’s role in an ordinary Christian life. More was conscious of living in ‘a Searching, Inquisitive, Rational and Philosophical Age’, and he saw it as his duty to serve God by ‘gaining or retaining the more Rational and Philosophical’ of his contemporaries in the Christian faith (1664: 482). Rational and philosophical genius was not, however, required of every Christian: although More’s accounts of faith vary somewhat from work to work, they typically call not for a rational assessment of argument and evidence, but for moral purity, and for a belief in (and devotion to) a relatively short list of ‘essentials’. More sought a statement of these essentials that would reach across Protestant sectarian divides. He also defended a liberty of conscience or religion that was, he said, the natural right of every nation and every person. It was, however, a liberty that could be forfeited, and More thought it had been forfeited by some (atheists, for example, and at least some Catholics and Muslims) who might be found claiming its protection.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-180
Author(s):  
T. E. C.

Although John Locke (1632-1704), physician and philosopher, is best known for his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), his medical journals contain a wealth of information about seventeenth-century English medical practice. Among his entries concerning diseases of infants and children is the following description of his treatment of "convulsion fits before tootheing."1 (Teething was frequently blamed for convulsions until this century.) Mond. Jul. 3. [1682] Convulsion fits before tootheing are from gripeings in the belly. Method [of treatment] 1st. Syrup of Meconium gr. 20 [diacodium or syrup of poppies], and when that has abated as it will do next fit, give sweet [oil] of [almonds] 1 oz., and when that had done purgeing as it will in 12 howers, allay the pain again with syrup of meconium, the fits ariseing only from pain. And so it is afterwards in tootheing, if they are bound purge with sweet [oil] of [almonds] and then allay with syrup of meconium. If they are loose syrup of meconium alone will do, for tis the pains along that cause convulsions in children. If the child be vigorous and a year old [bloodlet] also to prevent height of blood and feaver.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Nilsen

I The principles of the most ancient and modern philosophy tar Anne Conway (1631-1679) et oppgjør med teoriene til flere av sine samtidige mannlige kolleger, i fremste rekke Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), René Descartes (1596-1650) og Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677). En viktig del av denne kritikken handler om at hun mener at ingen av dem gir en fullgod forklaring på relasjonen mellom sjel og legeme. For Hobbes er alt i verden, sjelen inkludert, en del av den materielle og determinerte verden og således finnes det ikke noe mulighet for at mennesket kan ha en sjel som er fri. Hos Descartes finner vi den dualistiske læren om at mennesket består av to substanser, sjel og legeme, og mens legemet har utstrekning og således er ufritt, mangler sjelen utstrekning og kan dermed betraktes som fri. Spinoza hevder på sin side at sjel og legeme ikke er to substanser, men snarere to væremåter under den eneste substans som finnes, Gud, noe som gjør at sjel og legeme befinner seg på samme nivå og kan virke sammen. Mot disse teoriene hevder Conway, inspirert av sin kollega og venn Henry More (1614-1687), at det det ikke er mulig å trekke et definitivt skille mellom sjel og legeme. Det finnes ikke legemer som er uten sjel eller ånd, og det finnes heller ikke, riktignok med unntak av Gud, sjeler eller ånder som er uten legeme. Dermed er det verken slik Hobbes hevder, da ikke alt, men snarere ingenting, er rent materielt, ei heller slik Descartes hevder, da det ikke finnes et dualistisk skille mellom sjel og legeme, og endelig heller ikke slik Spinoza hevder, da det på nyplatonsk vis finnes et hierarki i naturen ut fra hvor langt de ulike «tingene» er fra Gud, og hvor sjelen innrømmes forrang framfor legemet. Dessuten inspirerte Conway Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) til å utvikle monadebegrepet, et begrep som er helt vesentlig i Leibniz sin forståelse av samvirket mellom sjel og legeme som preetablert harmoni. Conway må slik sies å delta aktivt i en av sin samtids mest intense filosofiske debatter og fortjener en langt mer fremskutt plass i filosofiens historie enn den ettertiden har tilkjent henne. Artikkelen min tematiserer ikke feminisme og kjønn, men den er en del av en satsning som forskningsgruppen i feministisk filosofi (FemPhil) ved Universitetet i Tromsø – Norges Arktiske Universitet har igangsatt hvor målet er å synliggjøre kvinners bidrag til filosofiens historie og således bidra til å revidere den gjengse forståelsen av filosofifaget som et fag av og for menn. Prosjektet har verdi i seg selv, da det bidrar til bedre balanse mellom mannlige og kvinnelige tenkere i filosofiens historie, men vi håper også at det på sikt vil bidra positivt til rekrutteringen av kvinner, det være seg både ansatte og studenter, til filosofifaget.


Paragraph ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-125
Author(s):  
Olivia Smith

What is the cognitive role of things — sometimes but not always expressed as nouns — that appear in texts? What kind of literary affordances are the material furnishings that appear in a piece of literary writing? These questions are explored in this essay through the example of John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), a long work of literary philosophy that plays with the evolving conventions of its genre. Fusing methodologies borrowed from anthropology and linguistics, this essay reveals the extent and type of work done by two of Locke's things, manna and porphyry. In doing so it tests a way of tracing the cognitive action of the Essay's contemporary readership without recourse to modern experimental methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document