John Locke’s “Book II: Essay Concerning Human Understanding Of Ideas” presents the idea of tabula rasa in which it is said that humans are born with a blank slate for a mind and that their feelings, opinions, views, and ideas are formed by the experiences they have. Locke is so self – assured in the philosophy he is presenting, despite not having any scientific evidence or proof. He uses rationality to prove that it only makes sense for a person’s opinions to be formed around the experiences and situations they go through in life. When he tells the reader to look inside themselves and evaluate the reason why they feel the way they do about certain things, it is a challenge to the reader to prove it to themselves that is philosophy is correct. Tabula rasa makes perfect sense for people who want a simple and rational explanation for their emotional reactions.
It can even serve as a possible scapegoat for people who have endured a particularly hard time. For example in today’s time, when scientists and analysts are arranging statistics for things such as poverty rate, crime rate, or illiteracy rate in certain areas, many argue that the reason why these statistics are so much higher in these areas is because of the environment and the experiences that one endures in these environments. They call themselves “products of the environments”; this can be seen as a modern and modified version of tabula rasa. Same principle applies.
Locke’s self-assurance in his philosophy is evident in his declarations of his thoughts. He doesn’t attempt to explain his principles in a scientific or formal manner, rather he let’s the reader know that this is what HE is calling these feelings and actions. This is a recurring instance in his essay. This shows his confidence in himself and what he declaring. He is admitting that these thoughts derived from him and his experiences. Locke is speaking in a tone in which he is reaching out to the common man. He wants everyone to grasp the concepts that he is presenting (he even capitalizes key words that he wants the reader to really pay attention to such as Reflection and Sensation). He makes sure he is speaking generally and explaining his vocabulary perfectly, so that there is no misunderstanding in the message that he is attempting to convey.
In contrasting Locke’s writing with that of Edwards’s writing, one gets the sense that Edwards would believe that the divine light of the spirit of God would serve to enhance the natural elements of the human mind, such as the sensations and reflections that Locke discusses. Edwards would say in response to Locke’s assertions that the Spirit of God assists the mind in all work, such as reflections, to a larger and further extent than if it was missing. Also I believe that Edwards’ would second guess and maybe even doubt the practicality and reliability of Locke’s declarations, because Edwards declares that the spiritual light reveals no new doctrine not in the Bible, however when people are examining themselves or others an incorrect conclusion not of God’s goodness or grace might be arrived at which could lead a person off the path of righteousness and into one of sin.
It can even serve as a possible scapegoat for people who have endured a particularly hard time. For example in today’s time, when scientists and analysts are arranging statistics for things such as poverty rate, crime rate, or illiteracy rate in certain areas, many argue that the reason why these statistics are so much higher in these areas is because of the environment and the experiences that one endures in these environments. They call themselves “products of the environments”; this can be seen as a modern and modified version of tabula rasa. Same principle applies.
Locke’s self-assurance in his philosophy is evident in his declarations of his thoughts. He doesn’t attempt to explain his principles in a scientific or formal manner, rather he let’s the reader know that this is what HE is calling these feelings and actions. This is a recurring instance in his essay. This shows his confidence in himself and what he declaring. He is admitting that these thoughts derived from him and his experiences. Locke is speaking in a tone in which he is reaching out to the common man. He wants everyone to grasp the concepts that he is presenting (he even capitalizes key words that he wants the reader to really pay attention to such as Reflection and Sensation). He makes sure he is speaking generally and explaining his vocabulary perfectly, so that there is no misunderstanding in the message that he is attempting to convey.
In contrasting Locke’s writing with that of Edwards’s writing, one gets the sense that Edwards would believe that the divine light of the spirit of God would serve to enhance the natural elements of the human mind, such as the sensations and reflections that Locke discusses. Edwards would say in response to Locke’s assertions that the Spirit of God assists the mind in all work, such as reflections, to a larger and further extent than if it was missing. Also I believe that Edwards’ would second guess and maybe even doubt the practicality and reliability of Locke’s declarations, because Edwards declares that the spiritual light reveals no new doctrine not in the Bible, however when people are examining themselves or others an incorrect conclusion not of God’s goodness or grace might be arrived at which could lead a person off the path of righteousness and into one of sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment