1) There are a lot of terms that Locke explores and uses in his essay on power. I liked how on pages 74 and 75 in sections 8,9, and 10 he is able to describe and explain what the similarities and differences are between liberty, thought, volition, and will. 2) In the past reading from Locke, we looked at the two main origins of ideas: sensation and reflection. In this reading, I thought it was interesting how on page 94, Locke put sensation and reflection into the category of them being simple ideas, and that we receive them passively. He also adds another category of ideas called notions, which are complex ideas and is an active process.
"A man is free to the extent that he has the power to think or not, to move or not, according to the preference or direction of his own mind." I think this means that freedom is the bounds wherein you have a choice to commit an action or not. The "preference" is something I would equate to our whim. "Direction" is like one's inclination towards something.
"A man’s heart beats, and the blood circulates, and it isn’t in his power by any thought or volition to stop either process; and therefore in respect to these motions he isn’t a free agent." This quote is very much true to me. We do not possess control over these physiological processes. Or, rather, we are actually constrained because of this lack of ability to control. This constraint means we are not free.
1) Locke believes that both will and freedom are powers. Will is the "power that the mind has to order that a given idea be thought about or that it not be thought about, or to prefer that a given part of the body move rather than stay still or vice versa" (73), whereas freedom is the power to do or not do what one wills. Therefore, the will is not free, for a power is not capable of having a power because it is not a substance. 2) When Locke talks about desire, he mentions that what moves it is pleasure (happiness) and pain (misery), which completely makes sense to me. He believes that "everyone constantly pursues happiness, and desires whatever contributes to it" (82), and he also mentions "men are always concerned about pain, which is an intense uneasiness" (82), which I entirely believe is true, as although men are rational animals, multiple times we are driven by our desires as we seek to prevent pain or misery.
1. Locke expresses his idea of what power is when he states, " For powers are relations, not agents; and the only thing that can be free or not free is that which has or lacks the power to operate, not the power itself...." (Locke 77). With this definition, Locke later goes on to mention that a man has the power to move his body has he pleases, so this must make him free; and with this, power is freedom.
2. Something I would ask Locke would be what he meant when he stated, "Is freedom free?" (Locke 76). I stopped and asked myself that question and I can't really determine if Locke was seriously asking that or just making his readers think. I don't understand how freedom couldn't be free?
1)How does the power of reflection work in a rationalist model. Locke talked about reflection, but I found it puzzling how it could be possible to gain knowledge of the minds operations. If all knowledge is either derived from observation or from rational thought. It is possible to observe the observer? How do you reflect on what you are? It would seem to require a higher facility. Above sensation, and above the interpretation of that sensation. 2) Despite this being locke’s work outside of politics. His political belief and political way of thinking still made his political affiliations clear. For instance how unmetaphysical his idea of freedom is. Most other philosophers we have read especially in medieval have bent over backwards to come up with an intricate model describing and justifying free will. Locke description is brief and the justification seemingly not there.
The way Locke describes power is very interesting to me.That it has the ability to make a change and the ability to change. Yet I am a little confused as to why power would be associated with the ability to change which is correlated to being passive. I would think that power in the way Locke describes it would make passive be shown in a way strength yet a way of weakness.
"A waking man being under the necessity of having some ideas constantly in his mind, is not at liberty to think or not think, any more than he is at liberty to touch other bodies or not—·given that he touches the ground he stands on·. But whether he turns his thoughts from one idea to another is often within his choice," this interests me how can someone not have liberty to think or not to think. We see cases today where you can not think or keep your mind clear and that is through liberty.
I enjoy reading John locke compared to come of the other Philosophers we have covered because he does a good job at structuring his ideas. His idea of Power is an interesting one. Locke explains power as the ability to change perceivable things. He then explain how our bodies are constantly changing motion but we don's always have control over the movements our body makes one way or another, introducing the argument of Free will. On page 80, Locke explains how he was wrong about humans freely being good. Locke writes "I was forced to conclude that even when a person knows to be the greater good doesnt determine his will until his desire had been correspondingly raised and has made hum uneasy in his lack of good in question.". I believe Locke is saying that a person can only consider themeselves doing good out of free will is when it is harder to the right thing than it is the wrong. Simply knowing something is wrong and doing nothing about it does not not make you a good person.
1. Locke turns the notion of freedom of the will on its head in this section. As he describes, the will is not a substance, and as such, cannot have a power, because power is an attribute only attributable to substances. Rather, the will is not an active substance, it is a power. Therefore, accoding to Locke, the question -- "Does the will have power?" -- is an absurd question. It would be like saying "Does a power have power?
2. I found it helpful when Locke applied the concept of volition to the will - stating that we are compelled toward things that make us happy, and in the same respect, are repelled from this that dissatisfy us. He makes this clear when he states on page 78 when he describes the thought making process: "The motive for continuing in the same state or action is one's present satisfaction in it; the motive to chance is always some uneasiness."
1.) Locke's ideas of power, liberty and free will are fascinating. I find his compatibility interesting, "Powers belong only to Agents, and are Attributes only of Substances, and not of Powers themselves". It almost reminds me of Spinoza's compatibility albeit, he seems to believe that the question in general is a problem of language and not necessarily a genuine one that can be answered in any way that would make sense. 2.) I find it interesting how this conception of power and liberty can be used as the foundation for his justification for the separation of powers in governance. If desires are somewhat determined than his statement that the powers of authority should be separated on the grounds that one always will favor themselves above others in legal matters makes complete sense.
1. In the beginning of Power, Locke defines what Power is. What I thought was interesting is he described Power is twofold. On page 72, "Power is the ability to make a change, and the ability to be changed; one may be called active, the other passive power" (Locke 72). When I think about power, I thought of it as being in charge not as the ability to change.
2. In the chapter called Mixed Modes, Locke describes it as complex ideas of obligation. The examples he chose were lies or drunkenness. Locke states "They consists of simple ideas all of the same kind" (Locke 29). When we lie or are drunk, our ideas are still there but there are just modified by free will.
1. What made an impression on me is Locke's discussion of how our human perspective limits our understanding of the world. He raises examples that pertain specifically to our sensory experiences. For instance, he writes: "if our senses were sharp enough to distinguish the minute particles of bodies and the real constitution on which their sensible qualities depend, I am sure they would produce in us ideas quite different from the ones they now produce; the yellow colour of gold, for example, would be replaced by an admirable texture of parts of a certain size and shape," (Locke, 100). I find it fascinating to think about how we would define aspects of the world if our senses were different. I like to compare this to the ways in which other animals perceive the world now and how they would if they were intellectual beings like us; how would they categorize? What would they find meaning in? What would their languages be? What would differ between social and nonsocial animals? 2. In terms of humans with different sensory perceptions: What would each altered sense change in terms of the way we live? What changes could we see in language, culture, relationships?
1.) While I still find Locke's ideas about experience as the ground of knowledge immensely useful, I cant help but wonder where logical reasoning fits into the picture. Where do we observe logic in nature? What sort of simple ideas is logic composed of? Perhaps it could be found within certain natural systems that we observe but even then it seems to vague to explain the nature of logic itself. 2.) I cant help but wonder if logic is somehow related to structures within the mind itself that are required for consciousness to exist. Perhaps then the two dont have to be mutually exclusive. We can get knowledge from both experience and rationality.
1) There are a lot of terms that Locke explores and uses in his essay on power. I liked how on pages 74 and 75 in sections 8,9, and 10 he is able to describe and explain what the similarities and differences are between liberty, thought, volition, and will.
ReplyDelete2) In the past reading from Locke, we looked at the two main origins of ideas: sensation and reflection. In this reading, I thought it was interesting how on page 94, Locke put sensation and reflection into the category of them being simple ideas, and that we receive them passively. He also adds another category of ideas called notions, which are complex ideas and is an active process.
"A man is free to the extent that he has the power to think or not, to move or not, according to the preference or direction of his own mind." I think this means that freedom is the bounds wherein you have a choice to commit an action or not. The "preference" is something I would equate to our whim. "Direction" is like one's inclination towards something.
ReplyDelete"A man’s heart beats, and the blood circulates, and it isn’t in his power by any thought or volition to stop either process; and therefore in respect to these motions he isn’t a free agent." This quote is very much true to me. We do not possess control over these physiological processes. Or, rather, we are actually constrained because of this lack of ability to control. This constraint means we are not free.
1) Locke believes that both will and freedom are powers. Will is the "power that the mind has to order that a given idea be thought about or that it not be thought about, or to prefer that a given part of the body move rather than stay still or vice versa" (73), whereas freedom is the power to do or not do what one wills. Therefore, the will is not free, for a power is not capable of having a power because it is not a substance.
ReplyDelete2) When Locke talks about desire, he mentions that what moves it is pleasure (happiness) and pain (misery), which completely makes sense to me. He believes that "everyone constantly pursues happiness, and desires whatever contributes to it" (82), and he also mentions "men are always concerned about pain, which is an intense uneasiness" (82), which I entirely believe is true, as although men are rational animals, multiple times we are driven by our desires as we seek to prevent pain or misery.
1. Locke expresses his idea of what power is when he states, " For powers are relations, not agents; and the only thing that can be free or not free is that which has or lacks the power to operate, not the power itself...." (Locke 77). With this definition, Locke later goes on to mention that a man has the power to move his body has he pleases, so this must make him free; and with this, power is freedom.
ReplyDelete2. Something I would ask Locke would be what he meant when he stated, "Is freedom free?" (Locke 76). I stopped and asked myself that question and I can't really determine if Locke was seriously asking that or just making his readers think. I don't understand how freedom couldn't be free?
1)How does the power of reflection work in a rationalist model. Locke talked about reflection, but I found it puzzling how it could be possible to gain knowledge of the minds operations. If all knowledge is either derived from observation or from rational thought. It is possible to observe the observer? How do you reflect on what you are? It would seem to require a higher facility. Above sensation, and above the interpretation of that sensation.
ReplyDelete2) Despite this being locke’s work outside of politics. His political belief and political way of thinking still made his political affiliations clear. For instance how unmetaphysical his idea of freedom is. Most other philosophers we have read especially in medieval have bent over backwards to come up with an intricate model describing and justifying free will. Locke description is brief and the justification seemingly not there.
The way Locke describes power is very interesting to me.That it has the ability to make a change and the ability to change. Yet I am a little confused as to why power would be associated with the ability to change which is correlated to being passive. I would think that power in the way Locke describes it would make passive be shown in a way strength yet a way of weakness.
ReplyDelete"A waking man being under the necessity of having some ideas constantly in his mind, is not at liberty to think or not think, any more than he is at liberty to touch other bodies or not—·given that he touches the ground he stands on·. But whether he turns his thoughts from one idea to another is often within his choice," this interests me how can someone not have liberty to think or not to think. We see cases today where you can not think or keep your mind clear and that is through liberty.
I enjoy reading John locke compared to come of the other Philosophers we have covered because he does a good job at structuring his ideas. His idea of Power is an interesting one. Locke explains power as the ability to change perceivable things. He then explain how our bodies are constantly changing motion but we don's always have control over the movements our body makes one way or another, introducing the argument of Free will.
ReplyDeleteOn page 80, Locke explains how he was wrong about humans freely being good. Locke writes "I was forced to conclude that even when a person knows to be the greater good doesnt determine his will until his desire had been correspondingly raised and has made hum uneasy in his lack of good in question.". I believe Locke is saying that a person can only consider themeselves doing good out of free will is when it is harder to the right thing than it is the wrong. Simply knowing something is wrong and doing nothing about it does not not make you a good person.
1. Locke turns the notion of freedom of the will on its head in this section. As he describes, the will is not a substance, and as such, cannot have a power, because power is an attribute only attributable to substances. Rather, the will is not an active substance, it is a power. Therefore, accoding to Locke, the question -- "Does the will have power?" -- is an absurd question. It would be like saying "Does a power have power?
ReplyDelete2. I found it helpful when Locke applied the concept of volition to the will - stating that we are compelled toward things that make us happy, and in the same respect, are repelled from this that dissatisfy us. He makes this clear when he states on page 78 when he describes the thought making process: "The motive for continuing in the same state or action is one's present satisfaction in it; the motive to chance is always some uneasiness."
1.) Locke's ideas of power, liberty and free will are fascinating. I find his compatibility interesting, "Powers belong only to Agents, and are Attributes only of Substances, and not of Powers themselves". It almost reminds me of Spinoza's compatibility albeit, he seems to believe that the question in general is a problem of language and not necessarily a genuine one that can be answered in any way that would make sense.
ReplyDelete2.) I find it interesting how this conception of power and liberty can be used as the foundation for his justification for the separation of powers in governance. If desires are somewhat determined than his statement that the powers of authority should be separated on the grounds that one always will favor themselves above others in legal matters makes complete sense.
1. In the beginning of Power, Locke defines what Power is. What I thought was interesting is he described Power is twofold. On page 72, "Power is the ability to make a change, and the ability to be changed; one may be called active, the other passive power" (Locke 72). When I think about power, I thought of it as being in charge not as the ability to change.
ReplyDelete2. In the chapter called Mixed Modes, Locke describes it as complex ideas of obligation. The examples he chose were lies or drunkenness. Locke states "They consists of simple ideas all of the same kind" (Locke 29). When we lie or are drunk, our ideas are still there but there are just modified by free will.
1. What made an impression on me is Locke's discussion of how our human perspective limits our understanding of the world. He raises examples that pertain specifically to our sensory experiences. For instance, he writes: "if our senses were sharp enough to distinguish the minute particles of bodies and the real constitution on which
ReplyDeletetheir sensible qualities depend, I am sure they would produce
in us ideas quite different from the ones they now produce; the yellow colour of gold, for example, would be replaced by
an admirable texture of parts of a certain size and shape," (Locke, 100). I find it fascinating to think about how we would define aspects of the world if our senses were different. I like to compare this to the ways in which other animals perceive the world now and how they would if they were intellectual beings like us; how would they categorize? What would they find meaning in? What would their languages be? What would differ between social and nonsocial animals?
2. In terms of humans with different sensory perceptions: What would each altered sense change in terms of the way we live? What changes could we see in language, culture, relationships?
1.) While I still find Locke's ideas about experience as the ground of knowledge immensely useful, I cant help but wonder where logical reasoning fits into the picture. Where do we observe logic in nature? What sort of simple ideas is logic composed of? Perhaps it could be found within certain natural systems that we observe but even then it seems to vague to explain the nature of logic itself.
ReplyDelete2.) I cant help but wonder if logic is somehow related to structures within the mind itself that are required for consciousness to exist. Perhaps then the two dont have to be mutually exclusive. We can get knowledge from both experience and rationality.